An Environment and Lands Court in Shanzu, on Tuesday, June 6, ordered a landlord to pay his former caretaker Ksh3 million as compensation for his devotion.
The caretaker moved to court to sue the estranged employer for evicting him from a 2.2-acre piece of land that he had lived on for the past 32 years.
However, the employer ordered the caretaker and his family to vacate the land, which irked him.
While issuing the ruling, Justice Lucas Naikuni stated that the caretaker had been devoted to his service. Therefore, it was unfair to evict him from the piece of land empty-handed.
However, he noted that the caretaker was not entitled to the piece of land despite his three-decade-long service.
“To avoid the first plaintiff and his family becoming destitute and homeless, and in accordance with the right to housing and settlement guaranteed by Article 43 of the Constitution, I urge the defendant to consider awarding the first plaintiff a sum of Ksh3 million,” the judge ruled.
While filing the case against the employer in 2019, the caretaker sought to be granted ownership of the land, arguing that it was sentimental.
He noted that he had lived on the piece of land for 12 years without any interruptions, and the family's interest was overtaken by time. The caretaker was to be paid an equivalent of Ksh8,000 per month while in possession of the piece of land.
The caretaker had withdrawn the case against his former employer but was pushed to seek legal redress again after he was asked to pay his boss Ksh252,715 as the cost of the suit.
In a court ruling dated March 2021, the court stayed the order giving the caretaker and his partner 60 days to pay the employer.
"The plaintiffs later withdrew the case and the costs of the suit awarded to the defendant as per the orders of this court dated August 13, 2019.
"Further to that, there was a Certificate of Taxation issued on June 17, 2020, that certified the costs awarded to the defendants to the tune of Ksh252,715," the ruling read in part.
It was determined that the caretaker should have paid the landlord the sum before filing another case against him, which he did.
"The plaintiffs ought to have paid the defendant costs of the proceedings previously brought and discontinued by them. The proceedings are identical to the previous set of proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the defendants," added the ruling.
Nonetheless, the caretaker had the last laugh in court, winning Ksh3 million in compensation.
