[2022] KEELC 4937 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 4937 (KLR)

The court found that the application for a fresh eviction order was incompetent and an abuse of the court process because the judgment upon which the original eviction order was based had been set aside. Furthermore, both the suit and the counterclaim had been dismissed for want of prosecution and the dismissal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 4937 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Njoro Golf Club Squatters Self Help Group through its registered trustees and nine others; Defendant: Uhuru Welfare Association through its purported registered trustees and five others; Defendant: County Council of Nakuru
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 September 2022
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 437 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Eviction Order and Related Reliefs After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent and an abuse of court process.
Judges
JM Mutungi
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Adverse Possession, Want of Prosecution, Jurisdiction of Courts, Striking Out of Suit
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Orders Adverse Possession Want of Prosecution Jurisdiction of Courts Striking Out of Suit

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njoro Golf Club Squatters Self Help Group through its registered trustees and nine others

Plaintiff

Uhuru Welfare Association through its purported registered trustees and five others

Defendant

County Council of Nakuru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Eviction Order and Related Reliefs After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should issue a fresh eviction order against the plaintiffs and co-defendants from the disputed parcel of land.
  2. 2 Whether the application for eviction order is competent given the dismissal of the suit and counterclaim for want of prosecution.
  3. 3 Whether there exists a valid judgment or decree upon which an eviction order can be predicated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for a fresh eviction order was incompetent and an abuse of the court process because the judgment upon which the original eviction order was based had been set aside. Furthermore, both the suit and the counterclaim had been dismissed for want of prosecution and the dismissal order had not been set aside. As such, there was no valid judgment or decree in force to support the issuance of a fresh eviction order. The court emphasized that it cannot grant substantive reliefs such as eviction in the absence of a subsisting judgment or decree. The application was therefore struck out with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent and an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • The application dated January 20, 2021 seeking a fresh eviction order is struck out.
  • No orders as to costs.