https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3222

Murage v Muregi & another (Environment and Land Case 385 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3222 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3222 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu Environment and Land Case 385 of 2017 LN Mbugua, J May 21, 2026 Between Charles Githinji Murage Plaintiff and Munjuru Muregi 1st Defendant Charles Oyoo Kanyangi 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.Judgment was delivered in this matter on 25.5.2023 in the following terms;“The court finds that the Plaintiff in the originating summons has failed to prove his claim against the defendants whereas the 2nd defendant who is the plaintiff in ELC No. 248 of 2017 has proved his claim to the required standard. Accordingly, the court makes the following orders for disposal of the consolidated suits:a.The plaintiff’s originating summons dated 09.112.2013 be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.b.The 2nd defendant’s suit in Nyahururu ELC No 248 of 2017 is hereby allowed in the following terms only:i.A declaration be and is hereby made that the defendant, Charles Githinji Murage, and anyone claiming under or through him are trespassers on Title No Kinamba Mithiga/Block 2/127.ii.An eviction order be and is hereby granted against the defendant, Charles Githinji Murage and those claiming under or through him from Title No. Kinamba Mithiga/Block 2/127.iii.A perpetual injunction be and is hereby granted restraining the defendant, Charles Githinji Murage, and those claiming under or through him from re-entering title No. Kinamba Mithiga/Block 2/127.iv.The Land Registrar Laikipia shall forthwith remove the caution registered against the suit property.v.The OCS Ngarua Police Station shall assist court bailiffs in the execution of the orders granted.vi.The prayer for mesne profits is hereby declined.vii.The 2nd defendant is hereby awarded costs of the suit to be borne by Charles Githinji Muragec.The 1st and 2nd defendants in the originating summons are hereby awarded costs of the originating summons to be borne by the plaintiff, Charles Githinji Murage.” 2.The 2nd defendant has filed an application dated 9.7.2025 where he seeks the following orders;“1.That the Honourable Court be pleased to order the County Surveyor, Laikipia County to move to the parcel of land No. Kinamba/Mithiga/Block 2/127 to survey the same and mark the boundary between the Parcel of Land No. Kinamba/Mithiga/Block No. 2/432.2.That the County Surveyor do file the report in this Honourable Court within 45 days.3.That the Officer Commanding Police Station, Ngarua be ordered to provide sufficient security personnel to ensure that the survey and boundary marking is done4.That costs of the application be provided for”. 3.The application is premised on grounds that;“a)That the Court gave judgment in the case for the 2nd defendant/applicant on the 24th May 2023.b)That earlier on the Honourable court ordered the survey to be done and the boundary between the two parcels marked but the respondent resisted by inciting the family members against the Surveyors.c)That the application is necessary to ensure that the terms of the delivered judgment are implemented.d)That the application has been made in order to enforce the judgment in view of the violence the respondent and his family members have been threatening against the 2nd defendant/applicant.e)That the respondent should be ordered to pay costs of the application since him/his family members are the ones who have been destroying the fences marking the boundary time and again” 4.The application is also supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 5.The 1st defendant is not opposing the application, while the plaintiff did not respond to the same despite the fact that he was served. 6.I have considered the application at hand which is unopposed. The provisions of order 21 rule 5 stipulates that:“In suits in which issues have been framed , the court shall state its findings or decision with the reasons there of upon each separate issue”. 7.While section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that:“(1)All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.(2)The court may, subject to any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding under this section as a suit, or a suit as a proceeding, and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional court fees.” 8.Nowhere in the final verdict in the judgment of 25.5.2023 have the issues of survey of the suit land been raised. If the judgment did not capture any pertinent issues raised by the parties, recourse lies in an application for review and not to commence separate proceedings post judgment. I therefore find that the application dated 9.7.2025 is not merited. The same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Njau h/b for Magua – 1st defendantN/A for plaintiffNancy Mwangi – Court assistant