[2024] KEELC 5665 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 5665 (KLR)

The court found that there was no subsisting order for stay of execution following the dismissal of the 1st defendant's application at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal expressly held that no substantial loss would be suffered by the applicant and that damages would be an adequate remedy in the event of a successful appeal. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the judgment, including eviction of the 1st defendant from the suit property. The application for eviction was therefore merited and allowed, with costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 5665 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cynthia Wanjiru Gitonga; Defendant: Christian Njoki; Defendant: County Government of Nairobi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 July 2024
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 705 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application
Outcome
Application for eviction allowed with costs to the plaintiff.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Execution of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Eviction Orders Execution of Judgment Stay of Execution Land Ownership Disputes

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

Cynthia Wanjiru Gitonga

Plaintiff

Christian Njoki

Defendant

County Government of Nairobi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders of eviction against the 1st defendant from the suit property following the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether there is any subsisting order for stay of execution that would bar eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the application for eviction is merited in light of the Court of Appeal's ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no subsisting order for stay of execution following the dismissal of the 1st defendant's application at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal expressly held that no substantial loss would be suffered by the applicant and that damages would be an adequate remedy in the event of a successful appeal. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the judgment, including eviction of the 1st defendant from the suit property. The application for eviction was therefore merited and allowed, with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction allowed with costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application dated 15.8.2023 is allowed.
  • The 1st defendant, her servants or agents, shall be evicted from Plot B55 Umoja Innercore III, now parcel LR. Nairobi/Block83/1584.