[2021] KEELC 2524 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2524 (KLR)

The court found that the objector/applicant failed to adduce any evidence to prove ownership of the attached properties. The court concurred with the respondent's position that the objection was a tactic to delay or obstruct the execution process. As the objector did not discharge the burden of proof required under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2524 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: David Lubanga Maleya; Respondent: Japheth Musasa Libese; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Interested Party: Ernest Chavasu; Applicant: Wilson Amaheno Lubanga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Objection Application / Ruling on Objection Proceedings Regarding Attachment of Property
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Attachment of Property, Third Party Claims, Auctioneer Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Execution of Decrees Attachment of Property Third Party Claims Auctioneer Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Lubanga Maleya

Petitioner

Japheth Musasa Libese

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Ernest Chavasu

Interested Party

Wilson Amaheno Lubanga

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Objection Application / Ruling on Objection Proceedings Regarding Attachment of Property

  1. 1 Whether the properties proclaimed and attached by Dimonde Auctioneers belong to the objector/applicant and are therefore not liable for attachment in execution of a decree against the petitioner.
  2. 2 Whether the objector/applicant has substantiated his claim of ownership over the attached properties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objector/applicant failed to adduce any evidence to prove ownership of the attached properties. The court concurred with the respondent's position that the objection was a tactic to delay or obstruct the execution process. As the objector did not discharge the burden of proof required under the Civil Procedure Rules, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The objection application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.