[2021] KEHC 13015 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 13015 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs had obtained a valid judgment for specific performance, and all subsequent applications by the Defendant to challenge or delay execution had been dismissed. There was no legal impediment to executing the decree. The Defendant's refusal to execute the transfer documents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 13015 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rose Wambui Kamau; Plaintiff: Judy Wairimu Kamau; Plaintiff: Julius Karuga Macharia; Defendant: Cecelia Mou Charles–Harris
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 337 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Post Judgment Application for Execution of Decree
Outcome
Application allowed; orders granted as prayed.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Transfer of Land, Execution of Judgment, Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Transfer of Land Execution of Judgment 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Wambui Kamau

Plaintiff

Judy Wairimu Kamau

Plaintiff

Julius Karuga Macharia

Plaintiff

Cecelia Mou Charles–Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Post Judgment Application for Execution of Decree

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be compelled to execute transfer documents to give effect to the judgment for specific performance.
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar should be authorized to execute the transfer documents in default by the Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether there are any legal impediments to the execution of the decree in favour of the Plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs had obtained a valid judgment for specific performance, and all subsequent applications by the Defendant to challenge or delay execution had been dismissed. There was no legal impediment to executing the decree. The Defendant's refusal to execute the transfer documents necessitated the court's intervention to ensure compliance with its orders. The court therefore ordered the Defendant to execute all relevant documents to effect the transfer of Nairobi/Block 91/399 to the Plaintiffs within 30 days, failing which the Deputy Registrar was authorized to execute the documents on the Defendant's behalf. The Chief Land Registrar was also directed to give full...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; orders granted as prayed.

Orders

  • The Defendant is directed to execute all relevant documents and give effect to the Judgment issued on 22nd June 2016 and transfer Land Parcel Nairobi/Block 91/399 to the Plaintiffs and/or their nominees within 30 days.
  • In default of compliance, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, Commercial and Tax Division, is authorized and directed to execute all documents and instruments of transfer of Land Parcel Nairobi/Block 91/399 on behalf of the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiffs.