Prisca Wanjiku Kaberenge v Nanak Hospital Management Services [2014] KECA 461 (KLR)

INTHE COURT  OF APPEAL

AT NAIROBI

CORAM: MURGOR,J.A. (INCHAMBERS)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 119OF 2014 (UR.97/2014)

BETWEEN

PRISCA  WANJIKU KABERENGE………………..………..APPLICANT

AND

NANAK HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES .....…RESPONDENT

(Application for  stay  of  any  further proceedings from the judgment of the High court of Kenya at Nairobi (Gacheru,  J) dated  16th  May, 2014

in

H.C.ELEC. PET. NO. 546OF 2013)

****************

R U L I N G

On  the 3rd    June  2014, I  declined to certify  this matter as urgent having taken the  view  that there were  no  urgent circumstances to warrant the  issuance of a certificate of urgency.

The matter before me relates to a Preliminary Objection filed on 17th  March  2014  by  the applicant and  raised in an Originating Summons which  was  filed   by  the  respondent on  16th   February 2012. In  the Preliminary  Objection the applicant contended that LR  No.   209/2763/19  (“the  Property”)was   sold   to  Nanak Hospital Management  Services Limited on  14th   December 1995, but in the suit the  respondent is named as NANAK  HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT   SERVICESand   not  NanakHospital Management Services Limited; that the  Vesting order issued and  /or  amended on  15th October 1996  was  issued  four months after the Property was  registered to  Nanak  Hospital Management Services Limited, and  that the Property was valued differently, as the Vesting Order  to the  Nanak  Hospital Management Services Ltd specified  the  value   as  Kshs.  4,800,000/-  whereas the   title  to Nanak   Hospital  Management   Services, specified  the  value   as Kshs. 3,000,000/-; that the  affidavit of Janardhan  D.  Patel,  who has sworn  the  affidavit in support of  the Originating Summons is incompetent as he cannot be a director of  the  respondent, which is  not a  limited liability company; that  the applicant is  still   in occupation of the  Property and  cannot be illegally dispossessed; and that the irregularities in the  pleadings cannot be cured by any amendment.

The  Environment  and  Land  Court  dismissed the Preliminary Objection and observed   that   the names on the title documentation were  the same  save  that, the word  “Limited” had been omitted, and  that as  the application filed  by  the applicant did   not  dispose of  the   suit  in  limine, it did   not  qualify  as  a Preliminary Objection.

The applicant was aggrieved with the  Environment and  Land Court’s Ruling  (Gacheru  J) and  filed  a Notice of Appeal dated 19th May  2014.   The  applicant also  filed  Notice of Motion  dated 28 th May  2014, together with an  affidavit sworn  by  Prisca  Wanjiku Kiberengeand a Certificate of Urgency of the  same  date.

In  the  urgency certificate the applicant contended that the learned  judge  dismissed  the   application on  9th   May   2014   on grounds inter  alia  that parties to  the  Originating Summons could always be  amended instead of striking out the Preliminary Objection; that when  the  Originating  Summons came up  before the learned judge on  16th  May  2014, the  respondent declined to amend the pleadings and instead the learned judge ordered the parties to  file  written submissions so  that a date  for delivery of the  judgment  could   be   fixed; that  the  applicant  will   suffer irreparable prejudice  should  she  continue  to  litigate  with  a stranger to the  suit namely: Nanak HospitalManagement Services, as the respondent has refused to amend the pleadings. It is this certificate that I declined to certify as urgent.

The  application was  referred back  to me  under rule  55of this Court’s rules  for hearing inter  partes. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kariukisubmitted that the  respondent had refused to amend its pleadings in defiance of a court Order  and  as a consequence, the urgency  of  the  application was  that  the applicant was litigating with a stranger.  There  was the possibility of the suit being dismissed to  the  applicant’s prejudice, or conversely, if a ruling was delivered in  her  favour, she  would be unable to   execute the order against a stranger. Counsel submitted, that the  issue  was  not one  of joinder or non-joinder, but  of  capacity or locus standi of the respondent. Counsel continued that the  High  Court suit was  to be  mentioned on  7th July,  2014, when  the date  for delivery of the  judgment would be fixed. The  urgency was  that Court  must not deliver its  ruling on the Originating Summons, until the respondent complies with the court Order  of 16th May 2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Randereopposed the application and submitted that the applicant had not specified any  reason to  warrant the  issuance of a certificate  of urgency.  A Judicial Review  application by the applicant had  since  been dismissed by  Sitati,  J  on  20th  May  2010  in respect of a judgment entered in favour of the Resident Magistrate’s Nairobi City Council Court for the recovery of rates  over  the  Property, which property was  subsequently sold  to  the respondent. The  Originating Summons related to an  application for vacant possession by  the legal  owner, where Janardhan  D. Patel,  had  sworn  an  affidavit in support  of  the   Originating  Summons averring  that he  was   a director of the  respondent, which inferred that the respondent is a limited  company. In counsel’s  view   the   omission of  the  word “Limited”   did   not  negate  the   respondent’s  ownership of  the Property. Counsel  confirmed that the  applicant is in possession of the property, and  there was no  intention to  evict her  while   the suit was  pending. Counsel  reiterated that the  respondent was unwilling to amend the  name  of the respondent as the  exclusion of the  word   “Limited”  was  not fatal, and  was  of the  view   that since  the  High  Court was yet to rule  on the  Originating Summons, this Court  was  being asked   to  make   an  order in  vain.   Counsel concluded that and  in the  event the  High  Court ruled against her, the applicant still  had a right of appeal to this Court.

I have  considered the  pleadings and  heard the  rival submissions of counsel, but I am unable to establish from whence the urgency in  this  application arises.   My  understanding of the issue  is that the applicant is unwilling to  proceed unless  the respondent   amends  its    pleadings   to   incorporate  the    word “Limited”  supposedly, in  terms of the  Order   of 16th   May  2014. Their  contention is that the  High  Court should not deliver a ruling on  the  Originating  Summons, because one  of the   parties is  a stranger  to  the   suit.  On   the   other  hand,    Mr. Randere  has submitted that the  respondent does  not intend to  amend its pleadings,  or  to evict the   applicant whilst the   suit is  pending. Where  does  the  urgency arise?  In  my  view, the pendency of a ruling from the  High  Court  or any  other competent court without other  cogent  reasons is  not  a  satisfactory  reason  to   issue   a certificate of urgency. Having said  that, I  am  of the view   that given this  Court’s  current expeditious rate  of disposal of similar applications,  I  have   no  doubt that  the   applicant  will   have   an opportunity      to    argue the merits of the stay of execution application within a reasonable period of time.

For these  reasons, I decline to alter my  decision made  on 3 rd June  2014. The  costs  of this application for urgency to be  in  the main  application.

Datedand  delivered at Nairobi this  11thday  of JULY, 2014.

A.K.MURGOR

………………………

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this  is a true copy  of the  original.

DEPUTYREGISTRAR