M’ringeera v Public Trustee Meru County & 11 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 16 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4438 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **ENVIRONMENT AND LAND SUIT NO 16. OF 2020** ZABLON MURUNGI M’RINGEERA …………………….………PLAINTIFF VERSUS THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE MERU COUNTY & 8 OTHERS ........DEFENDANT AND ASENATH KAIMURI NYAMU & 2 OTHERS ……..INTERESTED PARTIES AND ISAAC BUNDI MWIRICHIA ……………PLAINTIFF/COUNTER CLAIMER **RULING** 1. Before me is the Notice of Motion Application dated the 07.04.2026; brought pursuant to provisions of **Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya; Section 152 A and E of the Land Act, 2012 [2016] and Article 40 of the Constitution, 2010,** and wherein the Plaintiff/Applicant *[hereinafter referred to as the Applicant]* has sought various reliefs. 2. The reliefs sought are: 3. *That the Honourable court be pleased to issue an eviction order against the Respondents, their servants and/or any other person or body of persons evicting them from the suit land of Kiirua/Nkando/605.* 4. *That this Honourable court be pleased to issue an order restraining the Respondents, their servants and/or any persons from further trespassing on the parcel of land Kiirua/Nkando/605.* 5. *That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order compelling the Respondents to demolish the structures and clear the crops put up on the suit land of Kiirua/Nkando/605.* 6. *That this Honourable court be pleased to issue an order authorizing the Applicants to demolish the structures and clear the said crops in the event that the Respondents fail to adhere to this Honourable court’s orders aforesaid.* 7. *That this Honourable court be pleased to order the OCPD Kiirua Police Station to provide security during the eviction, demolition and clearing exercise.* 8. *That the costs of this application be provided for.* 9. *Any other relief that this Honourable court may deem fit to grant.* 10. The subject Application is premised on various grounds. The grounds are: The Applicant is the registered proprietor/owner of LR No. Kiirua/Nkando/605 [hereinafter referred to as the suit property]; the suit property measures approximately 8.4 Ha; the defendants and the interested parties trespassed onto the suit property; the Applicant was constrained to and filed civil proceedings; the civil proceedings *vide* the instant suit were heard and concluded; the court rendered a judgment on the 12.11.2025; the Judgment decreed that the defendants and the interested parties do vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property within 120 days; the defendant and the interested parties have failed and neglected to vacate the suit property and the defendants are still trespassing onto the suit property. 11. Additionally, the Applicant has posited thus: Following the delivery of the Judgment, same extracted the decree of the court; the decree was duly served upon the defendants and the interested parties; the decree was equally served upon the sub-county police commandant – Kiirua sub county; the duration that was given to the defendants/interested parties has lapsed; and the Applicant is desirous to appropriate the fruits of the Judgment of the court. 12. Furthermore, the Applicant has contended that: The defendants/interested parties filed/lodged a Notice of Appeal; the Notice of Appeal was however lodged in contravention of the rules of the Court of Appeal; the Notice of Appeal was subsequently struck out for being incompetent; and there is no order of stay of execution that has ever been issued against the decree of the court. 13. The instant Application is supported by two [2] affidavits. The first affidavit is the supporting affidavit sworn on the 07.04.2026 and wherein the deponent has annexed a total of six [6] documents, *inter alia*; a copy of the decree of the court; copy of the eviction notice; and a copy of the affidavit of service denoting service of the decree upon the defendants and the interested parties, respectively. 14. The next affidavit is the supplementary affidavit sworn on the 08.06.2026 and wherein the deponent has posited thus: The contents of the replying affidavit sworn by Joseph Mworia reeks of falsehoods; the deponent of the replying affidavit has committed perjury; there is no appeal that has been filed against the Judgment and decree of this court; the Notice of Appeal which as filed was defective and same was struck out. In addition, the deponent of the supplementary affidavit has posited that the decree of the court remains lawful and thus an order of eviction ought to be issued. 15. The Respondents have opposed the application *vide* replying affidavit sworn on the 04.06.2026. The replying affidavit has been sworn by Joseph Mworia the 2nd Respondent. The deponent of the replying affidavit has averred thus: The Respondents were aggrieved by the Judgment and the consequential decree of the court; the Respondents proceeded to and lodged a Notice of Appeal; the Respondents have an arguable appeal; the grant of the orders sought will defeat the pending appeal; the court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to preserve the substratum of the appeal; the issuance of the orders of sought would be detrimental to the Respondents; and the orders sought are not merited. 16. The application came up for hearing on the 11.06.2026, whereupon the advocates for the parties intimated to the court that same were ready to proceed with the hearing of the application. Moreover, the advocates sought directions as pertains to the hearing and disposal of the application. To this end, the court proceeded to and issued directions. The directions were: the application to be canvassed vide oral submissions; and the parties to be granted five minutes each. 17. Learned counsel for the Applicant adopted the grounds at the foot of the application; reiterated the contents of the supporting affidavit; the contents of the supplementary affidavit; as well as the annextures thereto. Furthermore, learned counsel for the Applicant invited the court to find and hold that the timelines that were given to the Respondents to vacate the suit property, has since lapsed. In addition, it was submitted that despite the lapse of the timelines, the Respondents have neglected to vacate the suit property. 18. It was the further submission by learned counsel for the Applicant that the decree of the court remains in situ and same has neither been varied nor set aside. Moreover, counsel posited that there is no order of stay of execution that has ever been issued. 19. Premised on the foregoing, learned counsel for the Applicant invited the court to find and hold that the Applicant is entitled to benefit from the fruits of the Judgment. To this end, the court was implored to allow the application and to grant a formal order of eviction so as to facilitate the realization of the fruits of the Judgment. 20. Learned counsel for the Respondents adopted the contents of the replying affidavit sworn on the 04.06.2026 and thereafter canvassed two [2] key issues. The issues are: The Respondents have since filed and lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal; and the appeal before the Court of Appeal shall be defeated by the grant of the orders of eviction. 21. Additionally, learned counsel for the respondent[s] has submitted that the Respondents have been residing on the suit property and have undertaken extensive developments thereon; and thus the issuance of the orders of eviction shall render the Respondents destitute. 22. Flowing from the foregoing, learned counsel for the Respondents invited the court to take into account the overriding objectives of the court [**Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act]** and **[Article 159 of the Constitution, 2010]** and to decline the orders sought. 23. Having reviewed, the Notice of Motion Application; the supporting affidavit, the supplementary affidavit; and the replying affidavit sworn in opposition thereto; and upon considering the oral submissions canvassed by/ on behalf of the respective parties; and bearing in mind the provisions of **Order 42 Rule 6[1] of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010,** I come to the conclusion that the determination of the subject application turns on two key issues. The issues are: Whether the existence of an appeal/intended appeal by and of itself constitutes a stay of execution; and whether the Applicant has established sufficient basis to warrant the issuance of the orders sought or otherwise. 24. Regarding the first issue, I wish to clarify that the filing of a Notice of Appeal or an appeal, by and of itself, does not constitute an order of stay of execution. Moreover, the fact that the Respondents have since filed an application seeking extension of time within which to file/lodge a Notice of Appeal, does not constitute an order of stay. 25. Though learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the Respondents have since filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, what transpired is to the effect that the Respondents had previously filed/lodged a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the Notice of Appeal that was lodged by/on behalf of the Respondents was struck out on the 12.05.2026, for being incompetent and having been lodged in contravention of the rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. 26. Further, and in addition, it is imperative to highlight that following the striking out to the Notice of Appeal, the Respondents herein have since reverted to the Court of Appeal and same are seeking extension of time within which to file and lodge a Notice of Appeal. Nevertheless, it is common ground that the application seeking extension of time has not been allowed. For good measure, the application is pending ruling. 27. The question that does arise is whether the filing of the application seeking for extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal, constitutes an appeal; and whether such an application can be conflated as an appeal, in the manner posited by learned counsel for the Respondents. The answer to this question obtains in **Order 42 Rule 6 [4] of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010**. 28. Be that as it may, the critical issue that falls for consideration is whether an appeal or an intended appeal constitute[s] an order of stay. To my mind, the provisions of **Order 42 Rule 6 [1] of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010**, are apt and explicit. The bottom line is that no appeal or second appeal constitute an order of stay. Nevertheless, it is stipulated that the court appealed from; or the court appealed to, is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to grant an order of stay of execution provided sufficient cause is shown or established. 29. *In a nutshell,* it is my finding and holding that the submissions by learned counsel for the Respondents, were misplaced. For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of an appeal [if any], by and of itself, does not constitute an order of stay of execution. 30. Next is the issue as to whether, the Applicant has established sufficient cause to warrant the issuance of the orders of eviction. It is common ground that the Applicant herein filed the instant suit and thereafter, the suit was heard and determined *vide* Judgment rendered on the 12.11.2025. The Judgment under reference contained various clauses including; an order that the Respondents do vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property within 120 days from the date of delivery of the judgment. In addition, the Applicant was granted liberty to levy eviction, in the event of default by the Respondents to vacate the suit property. 31. There is no gainsaying that the Respondents have not complied with the terms of the decree of the court. Suffice it to state that the Respondents have remained in occupation and possession of the suit property, despite the explicit terms of the orders of the court. Instructively, the continued occupation and possession of the suit property by the Respondents, on the face of the lawful court orders, constitutes and amounts to willful disobedience of lawful court orders. 32. I hasten to state that court orders are not mere suggestions. Court orders are not made for ornamental purposes. On the contrary, court orders are commands and thus obligate the parties, to obey; abide and comply. Moreover, where there is non-compliance, the court that issued the order or such other court of competent jurisdiction, is duty bound to facilitate the implementation of the order. 33. In respect of the instant matter, the Applicant herein procured a lawful decree. The decree vindicated the Applicant’s rights to and in respect of the suit property. The Applicant’s rights to the suit property are statutorily sanctioned. [See **Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, 2012**]. 34. To my mind, the Applicant herein has demonstrated sufficient basis to warrant the issuance of the orders sought. The Applicant has established that: 35. *He is the registered proprietor/owner of the suit property.* 36. *There is a lawful decree in his favour.* 37. *The decree has not been varied or set aside.* 38. *The decree has not been stayed.* 39. *The timelines that were granted to the Respondents to vacate the suit property has lapsed.* 40. Simply put, I am persuaded that the Applicant is entitled to partake of and benefit from the rights and privileges attendant to ownership of the suit property. The rights under reference cannot be partaken of and benefited from without the issuance of the orders of eviction. **Conclusion** 1. The Applicant herein has approached the court seeking orders of eviction. It was the obligation of the Applicant to place before the court credible material to warrant a finding in his favour. Suffice it to state that the Applicant has duly met and satisfied the threshold. It is not lost on me that the Applicant has a valid decree in his favour. The Applicant is by law entitled to benefit from the fruits of the said decree. **Final Orders:** 1. Consequently, and in the premises, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: 2. ***The Application dated 07.04.2026 be and is hereby allowed.*** 3. ***There be and is hereby issued an order of eviction against the Respondents/interested parties by themselves, agents, servants and or employees from LR Kiirua/Nkando/605 belonging to and registered in the name of the Applicant.*** 4. ***The Eviction order shall be executed by a nominated auctioneer appointed by the Applicant.*** 5. ***The Sub County Police Commandant – Kiirua Police Division [Buuri East Sub county] and the OCS – Kiirua Police Station be and are hereby ordered to provide reasonable security to the Applicant; and the nominated auctioneer to facilitate the eviction of the Respondents from the suit property.*** 6. ***The Applicant herein shall bear the reasonable charges towards provision of security in accordance with the applicable Government Scales.*** 7. ***Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Applicant.*** 8. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026** **OGUTTU MBOYA, FCIArb; CPM [MTI].** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Court Assistant: Zakayo Mr. Otieno Obwanda for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Muchiri holding brief for Mr. Atheru for the Respondents.