-
Last year, on August 24, the tenants moved to court and obtained orders restraining the county government from evicting them from the houses
-
The houses were allocated to the tenants by the former local authority after an application process
Image: FILE
At least 70 families in Otiende and Amalemba estates in Kakamega county have received eviction notices.
The non government workers were asked to handover the houses to the county by end of this month.
“You are hereby directed to handover the above referenced house immediately but not later than June 31 to the county director of housing at Kakamega municipal offices without fail,” the notice reads.
The notices dated June 6, are signed by the acting country director of housing Kevin Marangu and copied lands and housing executive Mariam Were and housing chief officer Shakir Aden.
Last year, on August 24, the tenants moved to court and obtained orders restraining the county government from evicting them from the houses pending hearing and determination of the petition.
They said the vacation notices issued to them contravened the national policy on housing, which provides for progressive provision of accessible and adequate housing.
The notices required them to leave the houses by July 31.
“The notices were given despite the county failing to provide recreational facilities and services as envisaged under the Housing Act and in further contravention of Article 43(b) of constitution in regard to the provision of reasonable standards of sanitisation,” the petition read.
But a judgment delivered on April 25, 2024 on their petition, the high court said the dispute should have been filed in a lower court and not the high court.
“The resolution of the dispute between them must be pursued through an ordinary suit filed pursuant to the law of contract and in view of the terms of their leases. An ordinary claim disguised as a constitutional matter and filed in the constitutional court is a claim filed in the wrong court,” the court said.
The tenants argued they were not involved when a decision to have the houses occupied solely by county workers was made.
They said the vacation notices were illegal and in contravention of their fundamental rights and freedoms.
The houses were allocated to the tenants by the former local authority after an application process.
The allocation was done on the understanding that it was to be followed by a lease agreement with an option to purchase.
The county government however declined to give them the lease and tenant purchase agreements in terms of the original housing policy.
The tenants sought an order prohibiting the county government from interfering with their tenancy.
In the alternative, they asked the court to direct the county government to compensate and give them alternative housing.
It said it is clear the petitioners did not demonstrate a constitutional issue beyond the contractual issues arising from the leases.
“Procedural law regarding constitutional matters is that where ample alternative or statutory avenues for resolution of a dispute exist, the alternative or statutory options for redress must be followed and the constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked,” the court said.
“I find the petitions do not disclose any constitutional issue and, in the circumstances, the reliefs sought cannot be issued. I find no merit in the consolidated petitions. I dismiss them with no order as to costs."