[2018] KEELC 4253 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4253 (KLR)

The court held that the decree issued on 18th January 1999 was fully executed by the subdivision of the original land parcel and the issuance of new title deeds to the respective parties. The applicants' current grievance—that the respondents have refused to vacate parcels now registered in the applicants'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4253 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Loice Wangari Kahuria; Applicant: Peter Mungai Kiboi; Applicant: Josephine Wairimu Kinuthia; Respondent: Patrick Mungai Karanja (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Karanja Kiboi); Respondent: Timothy Njung'e Karanja (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Karanja Kiboi)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 33 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Eviction Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Gacheru
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Eviction Orders, Title Registration, Subdivision of Land, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Execution of Decree Eviction Orders Title Registration Subdivision of Land Abuse of Process

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loice Wangari Kahuria

Applicant

Peter Mungai Kiboi

Applicant

Josephine Wairimu Kinuthia

Applicant

Patrick Mungai Karanja (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Karanja Kiboi)

Respondent

Timothy Njung'e Karanja (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Karanja Kiboi)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Eviction Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court can issue eviction orders against the respondents based on the decree already executed by subdivision and issuance of new title deeds.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' claim constitutes a new cause of action requiring a separate suit.
  3. 3 Whether the application is properly before the court under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decree issued on 18th January 1999 was fully executed by the subdivision of the original land parcel and the issuance of new title deeds to the respective parties. The applicants' current grievance—that the respondents have refused to vacate parcels now registered in the applicants' names—raises a new cause of action unrelated to the execution or satisfaction of the original decree. As such, the matter does not fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the court executing the decree cannot entertain the application. The applicants must file a separate suit to address the alleged trespass or wrongful occupation. The application for eviction...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 23rd July 2014 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs to be in the cause.