[2017] KEELC 3634 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3634 (KLR)

The court found that its previous order requiring the defendants to vacate the suit property and restore possession to the plaintiffs had not been set aside or stayed by any appellate court. The respondents' explanation that executive officers were out of the country and had not been personally served was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3634 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ravindra Ratilal Tailor; Applicant: Daya Singh Lahb Kalsi; Applicant: Narinder Singh Lochab; Applicant: Uasin Gishu Art Society of Eldoret; Respondent: The County Government of Uasin Gishu; Respondent: The C.E.C Lands Housing and Physical Planning Uasin Gishu County
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 220 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement of Previous Court Orders
Outcome
application granted
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Status Quo Orders, Possession of Land, Enforcement of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Orders Status Quo Orders Possession of Land Enforcement of Court Orders

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravindra Ratilal Tailor

Applicant

Daya Singh Lahb Kalsi

Applicant

Narinder Singh Lochab

Applicant

Uasin Gishu Art Society of Eldoret

Applicant

The County Government of Uasin Gishu

Respondent

The C.E.C Lands Housing and Physical Planning Uasin Gishu County

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement of Previous Court Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court's previous orders directing the defendants to vacate the suit property should be enforced through eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have disobeyed the court's orders to vacate the premises.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of personal service on the executive officers justifies non-compliance with the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that its previous order requiring the defendants to vacate the suit property and restore possession to the plaintiffs had not been set aside or stayed by any appellate court. The respondents' explanation that executive officers were out of the country and had not been personally served was not sufficient to justify non-compliance, especially since the order had been served and there was no evidence of a stay. The court emphasized that court orders must be obeyed and that the respondents' continued occupation constituted disobedience. Consequently, the court granted the application and ordered the enforcement of its previous ruling through police-supervised eviction of the...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The ruling delivered by this court on 18/8/2016 shall be implemented by the Officer Commanding Langas police station through the eviction of the defendants/respondents and their agents and servants from land registration Number Eldoret/Municipality block 13/22 formerly LR No. 6619/35.
  • The eviction exercise shall be supervised by the Officer Commanding Eldoret South Police Division and the County Commander of Uasin Gishu County.