[2023] KEHC 21027 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to execution of the decree and eviction of the respondents from the specified land parcel, as the respondents had failed to comply with the court's order for over a decade. The respondent's arguments regarding the size of the land and calls for a survey were not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21027 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Suleiman Karuga Njoroge; Respondent: Henry Amai; Respondent: Joseph Chacha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 72 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Eviction
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Execution of Decree, Land Parcel Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Suleiman Karuga Njoroge
Applicant
Henry Amai
Respondent
Joseph Chacha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Eviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to execution of the decree and eviction of the respondents from land parcel Nakuru/Kapsita/1131.
- 2 Whether the respondents have provided sufficient grounds to resist eviction as ordered by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to execution of the decree and eviction of the respondents from the specified land parcel, as the respondents had failed to comply with the court's order for over a decade. The respondent's arguments regarding the size of the land and calls for a survey were not substantiated by any formal application or evidence. The court emphasized that lawful court orders must be obeyed, and there was no contrary order staying or setting aside the eviction. Consequently, the application for execution and eviction was allowed, with costs awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- Tango Auctioneers to execute the decree of the court and evict the respondents and their agents from land parcel Nakuru/Kapsita/1131.
- The OCS Elburgon police station to provide security to the auctioneers during execution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Njoroge v Amai & another (Civil Case 72 of 2007) [2023] KEHC 21027 (KLR) (27 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21027 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Civil Case 72 of 2007
HK Chemitei, J
July 27, 2023
Between
Suleiman Karuga Njoroge
Applicant
and
Henry Amai
1st Respondent
Joseph Chacha
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. In his Notice of Motion application dated November 16, 2022 the applicant prays for the following orders;(a)That this court be pleased to order Tango Auctioneers to execute the decree of this court and evict the defendant and its agents from land parcel number Nakuru/Kapsita/1131. (b)The OCS Elburgon police station do provide security to the auctioneers.(c)Costs of the application.
2. The application is based on the grounds on the face thereof and the sworn affidavit of the applicant dated even date.
3. The 1st respondent has opposed the application vide his replying affidavit sworn on December 19, 2022.
4. When the matter came up for hearing the court directed the parties to file written submissions which they have complied and the court has perused them.
5. The issues herein are easy to understand. Judgement was issued against the respondent on 1May 2, 2010 and was ordered to vacate land parcel number Nakuru/Kapsita/1131. To date and despite many applications to thwart the said orders he has failed to do so.
6. In his reply he stated that he has not been violent and or refused to comply with the court orders. He seems to suggest that the land in question is more than that which the court gave the applicant and thus he calls for survey to be undertaken.
7. This court having perused and understood the matter does not see the reasons why the respondent cannot comply with the eviction orders issued over 10 years ago. There is no evidence that the land is small or big as he suggests. The title to the land litigated upon is one and if the same was big or small on the ground then it was incumbent upon the respondent to make the necessary applications for consideration.
8. Consequently, I find that the application is merited. In the absence of any contrary order stopping the eviction order then the respondent his servants or agents must comply with the law. Citing other illegal evictions across the country does not aid his course. He cannot disobey the lawful orders from the court which he is fully aware.
9. The application is hereby allowed with costs to the applicant.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023. HK CHEMITEIJUDGE