[2025] KEELC 4392 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4392 (KLR)

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to an order of eviction because there was no decree for eviction in their favour arising from the dismissal of the respondent's suits for adverse possession and specific performance. The court found that Order 22 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules only applies...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4392 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Johnstone Nyanyuki Menge; Defendant: Rhoda Mongina Ondoro; Defendant: Margaret Ondoro; Defendant: Thomas Ondoro
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 June 2025
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1130 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Eviction After Dismissal of Originating Summons for Adverse Possession
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
M Sila
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Eviction Orders, Civil Procedure Decrees, Specific Performance, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
english
Land and Property Adverse Possession Eviction Orders Civil Procedure Decrees Specific Performance Land Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnstone Nyanyuki Menge

Plaintiff

Rhoda Mongina Ondoro

Defendant

Margaret Ondoro

Defendant

Thomas Ondoro

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Eviction After Dismissal of Originating Summons for Adverse Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order of eviction after dismissal of the respondent's suit for adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether a decree for eviction exists that can be enforced under Order 22 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application for eviction is competent in the absence of a substantive decree in favour of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to an order of eviction because there was no decree for eviction in their favour arising from the dismissal of the respondent's suits for adverse possession and specific performance. The court found that Order 22 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules only applies where a decree for delivery of immovable property has been made, which was not the case here. The judgments in the previous suits merely dismissed the respondent's claims without granting any positive orders for eviction to the applicants. The court also noted that the reliance on Order 40 was misplaced, as it deals with interlocutory injunctions, not eviction. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 9 December 2024 for eviction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.