[2021] KEELC 2863 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2863 (KLR)

The court held that since the judgment delivered on 13th October, 2020 had not been appealed against or set aside, the plaintiffs were entitled to execute it. Furthermore, as the 2nd and 3rd defendants had, by consent with the plaintiffs, been removed from the suit, costs would only be payable by the 1st and 4th defendants. The court thus granted liberty to the plaintiffs to execute the judgment and awarded costs against the 1st and 4th defendants only.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2863 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gilbert Gitari Bore; Plaintiff: Omari Marijan Omari; Defendant: Kenya Urban Roads Authority; Defendant: The Administrator – Chuka Township; Defendant: The County Government of Tharaka Nithi; Defendant: Hyper Constructions & Equipment Company Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Post Judgment Ruling on Execution and Costs
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted liberty to execute judgment; costs awarded against 1st and 4th defendants only.
Legal Topics
Judgment Execution, Removal of Parties, Award of Costs
Source Language
English
Land and Property Judgment Execution Removal of Parties Award of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Gitari Bore

Plaintiff

Omari Marijan Omari

Plaintiff

Kenya Urban Roads Authority

Defendant

The Administrator – Chuka Township

Defendant

The County Government of Tharaka Nithi

Defendant

Hyper Constructions & Equipment Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Post Judgment Ruling on Execution and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to execute the judgment delivered on 13th October, 2020.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against all defendants or only those remaining after consent withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the judgment delivered on 13th October, 2020 had not been appealed against or set aside, the plaintiffs were entitled to execute it. Furthermore, as the 2nd and 3rd defendants had, by consent with the plaintiffs, been removed from the suit, costs would only be payable by the 1st and 4th defendants. The court thus granted liberty to the plaintiffs to execute the judgment and awarded costs against the 1st and 4th defendants only.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted liberty to execute judgment; costs awarded against 1st and 4th defendants only.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the Judgment delivered on 13th October, 2020 as it has not been appealed against or set aside.
  • Costs are awarded to the plaintiffs against the 1st and 4th defendants.