[2023] KEELC 330 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 330 (KLR)

The court found that the order of October 11, 2022, staying the judgment and decree, was issued on the assumption that the interested party was in actual possession of the suit property. This assumption was rendered uncertain by the affidavits and evidence presented by the applicant, which credibly challenged the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 330 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nelson Muturi Dumbeyia Harun; Respondent: County Government of Kajiado; Interested Party: Alini General Agencies Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Petition 4 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Previous Order
Outcome
Application allowed; order of October 11, 2022 vacated; costs to the petitioner.
Judges
MN Gicheru
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Possession and Occupation of Land, Right to Fair Administrative Action, Access to Information, Implementation of Judgment, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Constitutional Law Review of Court Orders Possession and Occupation of Land Right to Fair Administrative Action Access to Information Implementation of Judgment +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Muturi Dumbeyia Harun

Applicant

County Government of Kajiado

Respondent

Alini General Agencies Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Previous Order

  1. 1 Whether the order dated October 11, 2022 should be reviewed, discharged, or set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the interested party was in actual possession of the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the decree should be implemented given the lack of appeal by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of October 11, 2022, staying the judgment and decree, was issued on the assumption that the interested party was in actual possession of the suit property. This assumption was rendered uncertain by the affidavits and evidence presented by the applicant, which credibly challenged the interested party's claim of possession. Furthermore, the application by the interested party to set aside the judgment and decree had already been dismissed, and the respondent, being the only party entitled to appeal, had not done so. As a result, there was little likelihood that the judgment and decree would be varied. The court concluded that the decree must be implemented as...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; order of October 11, 2022 vacated; costs to the petitioner.

Orders

  • The application dated October 17, 2022 is allowed in its entirety.
  • The order of October 11, 2022 is vacated.