[2021] KEELC 1299 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1299 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants failed to comply with a binding consent order requiring payment of Kshs.10 million to the plaintiff. No explanation was provided for the non-compliance, and the replying affidavit was deemed to contain mere denials. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1299 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Karige Munge; Defendant: Gurun Investment Limited; Defendant: Dayah Construction Company Limited; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 238 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Injunctive Relief
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Injunctive Relief, Public Auction of Land, Consent Orders, Land Registration, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Execution of Decree Injunctive Relief Public Auction of Land Consent Orders Land Registration Enforcement of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Karige Munge

Plaintiff

Gurun Investment Limited

Defendant

Dayah Construction Company Limited

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution and Injunctive Relief

  1. 1 Whether a prohibitory injunction should issue to prevent dealings with the subject properties pending further orders.
  2. 2 Whether the subject properties should be sold by public auction to recover the decretal sum owed to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant should grant access to the plaintiff's agents for valuation and inspection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants failed to comply with a binding consent order requiring payment of Kshs.10 million to the plaintiff. No explanation was provided for the non-compliance, and the replying affidavit was deemed to contain mere denials. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the judgment by seeking a prohibitory injunction to preserve the subject properties and to proceed with their sale by public auction to recover the outstanding decretal sum of Kshs.30,000,000. The court further ordered the 2nd defendant to grant access for valuation and inspection, and directed that the costs of valuation, auctioneer's fees, and related expenses be paid...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A prohibitory order of injunction is issued stopping any registration or further dealing in respect of the 2nd defendant’s parcel of land known as L.R. Nos 19952/4 and 19952/5 (Grant Nos 153627 and 153628) pending further orders.
  • The subject properties owned by the 2nd defendant, namely LR Nos 19952/4 and 19952/5 (Grant Nos 153627 and 153528), are to be advertised and sold by public auction to recover the outstanding decretal sum of Kshs.30,000,000 due to the plaintiff.