[2025] KEELC 5332 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5332 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's Notice of Motion was fundamentally misdirected because it sought execution against the Defendants, whereas the judgment had condemned the Plaintiffs to pay costs. Furthermore, the affidavit of service showed that the Motion was served on the Defendants instead of the Plaintiffs,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5332 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Akhungu Makokha; Plaintiff: Eperim Kizito Makokha; Defendant: Benard Ouma Okelo (Substituted in Place of Mose Morris Pamba (Deceased)); Defendant: Vitalis Barasa Nyamboki; Applicant: Timothy Wanjala Wekesa t/a Timpech Auctioneers
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case 111 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
BN Olao
Legal Topics
Execution of Costs, Service of Process, Striking Out Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Costs Service of Process Striking Out Applications

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Akhungu Makokha

Plaintiff

Eperim Kizito Makokha

Plaintiff

Benard Ouma Okelo (Substituted in Place of Mose Morris Pamba (Deceased))

Defendant

Vitalis Barasa Nyamboki

Defendant

Timothy Wanjala Wekesa t/a Timpech Auctioneers

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Motion was directed to the correct parties for execution of taxed costs.
  2. 2 Whether service of the Motion was properly effected on the liable parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's Notice of Motion was fundamentally misdirected because it sought execution against the Defendants, whereas the judgment had condemned the Plaintiffs to pay costs. Furthermore, the affidavit of service showed that the Motion was served on the Defendants instead of the Plaintiffs, who are the proper parties for execution. As a result, the application was fatally defective and could not be entertained. The court struck out the Motion and directed the applicant to file a proper application against the correct parties and ensure proper service.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 19th March 2025 is struck out.
  • The applicant is at liberty to file a proper Motion to be served upon the Plaintiffs.