[2019] KEELC 3705 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3705 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated ownership of the suit land and had complied with all statutory requirements for eviction under the Land Act, including proper service of the eviction notice on the respondent and relevant authorities. The respondent, despite being served, failed to file any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3705 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Margaret Karwirwa Mwongera; Respondent: Francis Kofi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 6 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Eviction Application
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction of Unlawful Occupier, Service of Eviction Notice, Ownership of Land, Procedure for Eviction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction of Unlawful Occupier Service of Eviction Notice Ownership of Land Procedure for Eviction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Karwirwa Mwongera

Applicant

Francis Kofi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Eviction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the respondent from land parcel Naivasha/Ol Jorai Phase II/876.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory requirements for service of eviction notice under Section 152E of the Land Act were complied with.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was given an opportunity to be heard before the eviction order was made.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated ownership of the suit land and had complied with all statutory requirements for eviction under the Land Act, including proper service of the eviction notice on the respondent and relevant authorities. The respondent, despite being served, failed to file any response or provide any justification for remaining on the land. The court held that there was no reason to decline the application and that the applicant was entitled to an eviction order. The court further directed that the applicant could appoint a court bailiff or auctioneer to carry out the eviction, with police security provided, and awarded costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The respondent is to be evicted from land parcel Naivasha/Ol Jorai Phase II/876.
  • The applicant is at liberty to appoint a court bailiff or auctioneer to effect the eviction.