[2024] KEELC 13196 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to eviction orders as the judgment had already been delivered in her favour, and the defendants had failed to give vacant possession. The absence of an explicit eviction prayer in the plaint did not preclude the grant of eviction orders at the execution stage, as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 13196 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joan Owira Odhiambo; Defendant: Jane Aboge Ogola; Defendant: Benson Odhiambo Oriedo; Defendant: Nairobi County Government
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E043 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed; eviction order granted against 1st and 2nd defendants with police supervision; defendants to bear costs of eviction.
- Judges
- JA Mogeni
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Execution of Judgment, Vacant Possession, Enforcement of Decrees
- 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
Joan Owira Odhiambo
Plaintiff
Jane Aboge Ogola
Defendant
Benson Odhiambo Oriedo
Defendant
Nairobi County Government
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Eviction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction orders against the 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of plot C6-219.
- 2 Whether the absence of an explicit eviction prayer in the plaint precludes the grant of eviction orders at the execution stage.
- 3 Whether the court is functus officio in granting eviction orders post-judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to eviction orders as the judgment had already been delivered in her favour, and the defendants had failed to give vacant possession. The absence of an explicit eviction prayer in the plaint did not preclude the grant of eviction orders at the execution stage, as the application merely sought to give effect to the judgment and decree for removal of structures and possession. The court held that Order 22 Rule 29(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules empowered it to order delivery of possession, including eviction, where a decree for delivery of immovable property exists. The pending appeal and application for stay did not operate as a bar since no...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; eviction order granted against 1st and 2nd defendants with police supervision; defendants to bear costs of eviction.
Orders
- An eviction order is issued directed to the 1st and 2nd defendants, their servants, agents, and any other persons in occupation of property C6-219.
- The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Soweto Police Station or officer in charge of the nearest police station to oversee enforcement of the eviction order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Odhiambo v Ogola & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E043 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 13196 (KLR) (14 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13196 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case E043 of 2022
JA Mogeni, J
November 14, 2024
Between
Joan Owira Odhiambo
Plaintiff
and
Jane Aboge Ogola
1st Defendant
Benson Odhiambo Oriedo
2nd Defendant
Nairobi County Government
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. What is before Court for determination is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 16/05/2024 brought pursuant to Order Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Plaintiff seeks the following orders:1. That this Honorable Court do grant leave to the Plaintiff to forthwith evict the defendants, their agents, servants and any other person claiming a right under the defendants herein from the suit property being LR No. C6-219 in Kayole.2. That this Honorable Court do order the OCS Soweto Police station to enforce the orders sought herein.3. That the costs and expenses occasioned by and incidental to the Plaintiff’s entry and repossession of the suit premises be borne by the Defendants.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and the supporting affidavit of Joan Owira Odhiambo where she explains that judgement was delivered on 12/10/2023 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of all parties. The court issued an order for permanent removal of the building structures on the suit property. She contends that all subsequent applications that have been made by the 1st defendant to vary and or stay the execution of the judgment have been dismissed. That despite a written demand dated 2/12/2023 having been served on the defendants they have refused to vacate the suit property. She annexed a copy of the demand marked as JOO1 to the Supporting Affidavit.
3. She avers that the 2nd Defendant has stationed goons on the suit property and continues to collect rent and has prevented the plaintiff from accessing the suit property. This led to the plaintiff reporting the issue to Soweto Police Station. A copy of the OB is annexed to the Supporting Affidavit and marked as JOO2.
4. He seeks eviction, since there are no orders of stay against the judgement since its delivery. She reiterates that eviction orders should issue and the Officer Commanding Station (OCS)Soweto Police Station to supervise it.
5. The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 14/06/2024 where they allege that the applicant is not entitled to prayers of eviction since they did not seek these prayers in their plaint dated 3/02/2022 nor was the same ordered vide this Court’s Judgment dated 12/10/2024. Further, that if the Court entertains the Plaintiff’s Application, it will result in re-opening of a matter before this Court which has already rendered the final decision.
6. It is also their contention that they have already filed an appeal against this court’s decision vide Nairobi Civil Application No. E257 of 2024 seeking stay and the suit application was certified as urgent and a hearing date shall be communicated. 1st defendant denies that the 2nd defendant has placed any goons on the suit property and avers that the son of the applicant is the one who has driven out tenants and is collecting rent.
7. None of the parties filed their submissions to canvass this application by the time I was writing this ruling.
Analysis and Determination 8. Upon consideration of the Notice of Motion Application dated 16/05/2024 including the supporting affidavit as well as the Replying Affidavit sworn on 14/06/2024, the only issue for determination is whether an eviction order should issue against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect to plot C6-219.
9. It is not in dispute that this Court already pronounced itself in a judgement in favour of the Plaintiff. I note since the Judgement was delivered on 12/10/2023 the 1st and 2nd Defendants have not given the Plaintiff vacant possession of the suit land. The 1st Defendant claims the orders sought for eviction cannot be granted since the plaintiff did not seek for eviction in her plaint. Order 22 Rule 29 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:“Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property.”
10. In Menginya Salim Murgani v Kenya Revenue Authority [2014] eKLR the Supreme Court of Kenya held that: “It is a general principle of law that a Court after passing Judgment, becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the Judgment on merits, or purport to exercise a judicial power over the same matter, save as provided by law.”
11. In this instance there exists a Decree against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for permanent removal of the building structures on the suit property and compensation for loss of user. It follows that the court indeed the plaintiff should be utilizing their land as a result of the decision but the 1st and 2nd defendants have declined to adhere to the judgement. They claim to have lodged an Appeal against the said Judgement which they await determination by the Court of Appeal. To my mind I find that the only remedy that is available to the Plaintiff is to seek eviction orders in accordance with Order 22 Rule 29 (1) of the Civil Procedures Rules cited above. I hence disagree with the 1st and 2nd Defendants that the Plaintiff did not seek eviction orders in her pleading and that this is a new claim and is tantamount to reopening the suit. This application only sought to give effect to the impugned judgement which final orders are clear and the application has not invited this court to make any further determination of an issue in dispute.
12. It is against the foregoing that I find the application dated 16/05/2024 merited and allow it. I will proceed to make the following final orders:1. An eviction order be and is hereby issued directed to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their servants, agents and/ or any other persons whatsoever in occupation of the property known as C6-219. 2.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Soweto Police Station or the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station do oversee the enforcement of the said eviction order.3. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants be and are hereby ordered to pay the costs of the eviction exercise that may be incurred by the Plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024……………………...MOGENI JJUDGEIn the Virtual presence of; -Mr. Orondo Tuli for the Plaintiff/applicantMr. Ochieng holding brief for Sc. Prof. Mumma for 1st Defendant and 2ndDefendantMs. Irine Ochieng holding brief for Mr. Bake for 3rd DefendantCaroline Sagina - Court Assistant……………………...MOGENI JJUDGE