[2019] KEELC 2011 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2011 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had obtained a judgment entitling him to possession of land parcels Nyandarua/Kangui Township/136 and 137, and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents had encroached upon and failed to vacate the said parcels despite notice and the lapse of the period granted by the court. The respondents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2011 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Alex Kihonge Mukoma; Respondent: Joseph Ngugi Mburu; Respondent: Charles Kirundi Magu; Respondent: Peter Mungai Kagoiya
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 206 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application
Outcome
Application for eviction allowed.
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Land Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Execution of Judgments
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Orders Land Ownership Disputes Trespass Execution of Judgments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Kihonge Mukoma

Appellant

Joseph Ngugi Mburu

Respondent

Charles Kirundi Magu

Respondent

Peter Mungai Kagoiya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to eviction orders against the respondents from Nyandarua/Kangui Township/136 and 137.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have failed to comply with the judgment requiring them to vacate the suit properties.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the eviction application and execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had obtained a judgment entitling him to possession of land parcels Nyandarua/Kangui Township/136 and 137, and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents had encroached upon and failed to vacate the said parcels despite notice and the lapse of the period granted by the court. The respondents did not contest the application for eviction. The court held that the applicant was entitled to eviction orders to enforce the judgment, and that the OCS Ol Joro Orok Police Station should provide security during execution. The costs of the application and eviction were to be borne by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, as they were the parties in unlawful occupation and had failed...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction allowed.

Orders

  • Eviction orders issued against the 2nd and 3rd respondents to vacate Nyandarua/Kangui Township/136 and 137.
  • Applicant to appoint an auctioneer or court broker to execute the eviction.