https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3846

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE** **ELC CASE NO. 35 OF 2016** **AGGREY RATEMO ADEH** ***(Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of*** **PETER KAGUNZA ADAJI)----------------------PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **SIKUKUU MARTIN MAIYO--------1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **MARGARET CHESANG MAIYO---2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The court, through an application dated **16/3/2026,** is asked to issue an eviction order against the respondents, their agents, servants, and or any other person claiming under the respondents from Title No. **Kaisagat/Chepkoilel/Block 5/Amuka/13, and** in default of compliance, a court bailiff, under the assistance of the OCS Kaisagat Police Station, to do so while maintaining law and order. 2. The reasons are set out on the face of the application and a supporting affidavit of Aggrey Ratemo Adeh, sworn on **16/3/2026**. It is deposed that judgment on this matter was delivered on **20/12/2017**, and a decree thereof issued, which the defendants have neglected, refused, or failed to comply with. 3. The applicant deposes that the respondents unlawfully occupy, trespass upon, and interfere with the decreed land, making them suffer loss and damage. 4. When the matter came up on **23/4/2026**, there was no appearance by the respondents despite evidence of service of court processes. Learned counsel Mr. Teti submitted that the appeal, which had been preferred against the judgment, was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel, however, admitted that the decree of this court had not included an eviction order. Similarly, learned counsel submitted that no eviction notice has ever been served upon the judgment debtor to date. 6. The decree issued and signed on **17/1/2018** by the Deputy Registrar nullified the placing of a caution and ordered the 1st respondent to transfer **Title No. Kaisagat/Chepkoilel/Block 5/Amuka/13** to the applicant’s name, and in default, the Deputy Registrar of the court will do so. 7. It is not clear from the application herein if the decree holder has transferred the title to the suit land, and if so, when this happened. Execution of a decree on immovable property and a decree that is over one year are governed by **Order 22, Rules 18** and **30** of the Civil Procedure Rules as read together with **Section 38** of the Civil Procedure Act. 8. There is no evidence that the applicant has invoked the said procedure through the Deputy Registry before moving to this court. The eviction process is also governed by the procedure set out in **Section 152A-I** of the Land Act. There is no evidence of issuance of a 3-month notice upon the judgment debtor, his agents, servants, or employees. 9. In ***Mitu Bell Welfare Society -vs- Attorney General & Others Petition No. 164 of 2011***, the court decreed that evictions must be humane and must safeguard the right of persons liable to an eviction. 10. In ***Nyandat & 3 others -vs- Osura & 5 others (Civil Appeal 80 of 2019) [2026] KECA 767 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment),*** the court held that all questions related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree under **Section 34** of the Civil Procedure Act shall be determined by the court executing the decree and that any objection relating to limitation, procedural irregularity, or legality of execution must be raised within the execution proceedings. 11. From the foregoing, the applicant is yet to follow the law. This court, under **Article 259** of the Constitution, has to interpret the Constitution and the statutes purposively, for purposes of harmony. 12. **Section 152A-I** of the Land Act was a result of the ***Mitubell*** case ***(supra),*** to ensure that eviction processes in Kenya align with best practices across the world, which require a human eviction process. The Section, in my view, remains the substantive law to give eviction, whether court-sanctioned or not. 13. **Section 34** of the Civil Procedure Act and **Order 22** of the Civil Procedure Rules, in my view, should not be read in isolation from **Section 152A-I** of the Land Act. 14. The upshot is that I find the applicant does not require a court order to undertake to enforce the decree of the court outside the parameters set by **Order 22** of the Civil Procedure Rules. 15. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. File marked closed. 17. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated, signed,** and **delivered** via **Microsoft Teams/Open Court** at **Kitale** on this **24th** day of **June 2026.** **In the presence of:** Court Assistant - Dennis No appearance for the parties  **HON. C.K. NZILI** **JUDGE, ELC KITALE.**