[2012] KEHC 2423 (KLR)
The court found that the application for execution and eviction was premature because the main suit, brought by Originating Summons, had not yet been heard and determined on its merits. The only matter dismissed on 18/11/2011 was an interlocutory application for injunction, not the substantive suit. Furthermore, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2423 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Kiprotich Yegon; Defendant: Tabarno Chepkiyeng
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 113 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Eviction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the applicant
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Judgments, Eviction Orders, Land Disputes Tribunal Awards, Originating Summons Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Kiprotich Yegon
Plaintiff
Tabarno Chepkiyeng
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Eviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for execution and eviction is premature before the hearing of the Originating Summons.
- 2 Whether execution can be sought in this suit for orders made in a different case (Land Case 27/08).
- 3 Whether the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act affects the enforceability of orders made under it.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for execution and eviction was premature because the main suit, brought by Originating Summons, had not yet been heard and determined on its merits. The only matter dismissed on 18/11/2011 was an interlocutory application for injunction, not the substantive suit. Furthermore, the orders the applicant sought to execute were made in a different case (Land Case 27/08), and execution should be pursued in that suit, not the present one. The repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act does not retroactively affect proceedings commenced under it. Consequently, there were no executable orders in this suit, and the application was dismissed with costs to the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The application dated 21/3/2012 is dismissed as premature.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Case 113 of 2011
JOSEPH KIPROTICH YEGON........................................................................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
TABARNO CHEPKIYENG.................................................................................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
Eric Chepkiyeng filed the Notice of Motion dated 21/3/2012, seeking an order that he be allowed to execute the orders issued by this court on 18/11/2011; that the court do authorize the Officer Commanding Eldama Ravine Police Station to provide security to the Court Bailiffs and the Applicant during the execution of this court’s orders in HCC 112/08 and lastly that the court do issue an eviction order against the respondent if he does not vacate the suit premises.
The applicant is the appointed attorney and administrator of the Estate of Tabarno Chepkiyeng; that the respondent’s appeal No.112/08, against an award dated 10/3/09 was dismissed in the applicant’s favour on 29/4/2010 9ECI); The respondent’s application dated 31/5/2011 in HCC 113/2011 was also dismissed on 18/11/2011; that the respondent has refused to comply with the court’s order dated 10/3/09; that the applicant is suffering loss as a result of the respondent’s illegal possession of the suit parcel No. 9 and 4 Poror.
The application was opposed. Mr. Kimatta, counsel for the respondent filed grounds of opposition which are to the effect that there is an Originating Summons which is yet to be heard; that the judgment sought to be executed was made in CMCC Land Case No. 27/08 where this application should have been made; that Land Disputes Act where the orders weremade has been repealed and the application before court is bad in law.
Having considered the rival arguments, I do agree with the respondent that what this court dismissed on 18/11/2011, was an interlocutory application for injunction. The Originating Summons which is the main suit is yet to be heard on the merits. The instant application for execution is therefore premature.
The applicant also seeks to enforce orders made in Land Case 27/08. In that case, there was an appeal from the award made by the Land Disputes Tribunal case, in HCCA 112/2008, J. Mugo dismissed the appeal vide the ruling dated 29/4/2010 (EC1). The effect of the dismissal of the appeal was that the applicant could have proceeded with execution in the Land Case 27/2008. The applicant cannot therefore apply for execution in this matter.
As regards Mr. Kimatta’s argument that the Land Disputes Tribunal Act has been repealed, it is my view, that the new law governing land matters cannot act retroactively. Matters that were commenced during the operation of the repealed law must be determined under the said law.
In the end, I do find that this application is premature. There are no orders that the court can execute in this suit. In my view, the parties should move to take directions in this matter so that the Originating Summons can be heard and determined on its merits. The application is hereby dismissed with the applicant bearing the costs.
DATED and DELIVERED this 25th day of July, 2012.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
N/A for the plaintiff/respondent
Eric Chepkiyeng for the defendant/applicant
Kennedy – Court Clerk