[2023] KEELC 18392 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 18392 (KLR)

The court found that the orders sought by the plaintiff were in execution of a valid and subsisting decree for specific performance, which had not been set aside or varied. The defendant had failed to comply with the judgment by refusing to transfer the one acre parcel (now L.R No. 10874/1181) to the plaintiff and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 18392 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Wairimu Muturi; Defendant: John Wakibi Murua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 469 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution and Amendment of Decree
Outcome
Application allowed as presented.
Judges
AA Omollo
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Transfer of Land, Execution of Judgment, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Specific Performance Transfer of Land Execution of Judgment Ownership Disputes

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Wairimu Muturi

Plaintiff

John Wakibi Murua

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution and Amendment of Decree

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the transfer of L.R No. 10874/1181 to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the decree should be amended to specify the correct parcel and terms of specific performance.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should be compelled to deposit the balance of the purchase price upon transfer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders sought by the plaintiff were in execution of a valid and subsisting decree for specific performance, which had not been set aside or varied. The defendant had failed to comply with the judgment by refusing to transfer the one acre parcel (now L.R No. 10874/1181) to the plaintiff and had not opposed the present application. The court held that there was no reason to deny the plaintiff the fruits of her judgment and allowed the application as presented, including amending the decree to specify the correct parcel and compelling the transfer, with the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the purchase price upon transfer.

Court Disposition

Application allowed as presented.

Orders

  • L.R No. 10874/1181 is declared as the one acre severed from L.R No. 10874/51 to be transferred to the plaintiff.
  • Clause 2 of the decree issued on 17th July, 2018 is amended to compel the defendant to transfer one acre (L.R No. 10874/1181) to the plaintiff, and in default, the Chief Executive of the court to execute the transfer documents.