[2019] KEELC 4405 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4405 (KLR)

The court held that the duty to execute the judgment for subdivision and distribution of the land parcels lies with the directors of Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd. The applicants should first pursue contempt proceedings or other appropriate applications against the directors for non-compliance with the judgment, rather...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4405 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter K. Gitahi; Plaintiff: Ndungu Mugoya; Defendant: Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd; Defendant: John Kagai
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 288 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Execution Application / Ruling on Application for Execution of Decree
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Land Buying Companies, Company Directors Liability, Contempt of Court
Source Language
en
Land and Property Execution of Decree Land Buying Companies Company Directors Liability Contempt of Court

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter K. Gitahi

Plaintiff

Ndungu Mugoya

Plaintiff

Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd

Defendant

John Kagai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Execution Application / Ruling on Application for Execution of Decree

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the decree for subdivision and distribution of land owned by a land buying company can be overseen by public officers instead of the company directors.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should first pursue contempt proceedings against the company directors for non-compliance with the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the duty to execute the judgment for subdivision and distribution of the land parcels lies with the directors of Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd. The applicants should first pursue contempt proceedings or other appropriate applications against the directors for non-compliance with the judgment, rather than seeking to have public officers or third parties execute the decree. The application for execution by public officers was therefore premature and not the proper course at this stage. The application was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 13 February 2018 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.