[2023] KEELC 21949 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with a valid and enforceable decree requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. No stay of execution was in place, and the respondent had not provided any justifiable reason for his continued occupation or for ignoring...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 21949 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Glory Nkuene Rufus; Plaintiff: Martin Koome Kiambati; Defendant: George Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 95 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed; respondent ordered to deliver vacant possession within seven days or face eviction at own cost.
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Vacant Possession, Enforcement of Judgment, Eviction Orders, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Glory Nkuene Rufus
Plaintiff
Martin Koome Kiambati
Plaintiff
George Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to deliver vacant possession of LR No. Kiirua/Naari/Maitei/59 to the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the OCS Kiirua Police Station should assist in enforcing the court's decree for vacant possession.
- 3 Whether the respondent's continued occupation and receipt of rental income constitutes contempt or defiance of court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with a valid and enforceable decree requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. No stay of execution was in place, and the respondent had not provided any justifiable reason for his continued occupation or for ignoring the court's orders. The court emphasized that its orders must be respected and enforced, and that the respondent's actions amounted to defiance of the judicial process. Accordingly, the court granted the application for enforcement, ordered the respondent to vacate within seven days, and authorized police assistance for eviction if necessary, with costs to be borne by the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; respondent ordered to deliver vacant possession within seven days or face eviction at own cost.
Orders
- The respondent shall hand over to the plaintiffs/applicants vacant possession of LR No. Kiirua/Naari/Maitei/59 within seven days.
- In default, the respondent shall be evicted at his own cost and expenses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Rufus & another v Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi (Environment & Land Case 95 of 2013) [2023] KEELC 21949 (KLR) (29 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21949 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment & Land Case 95 of 2013
CK Nzili, J
November 29, 2023
Between
Glory Nkuene Rufus
1st Plaintiff
Martin Koome Kiambati
2nd Plaintiff
and
George Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi
Defendant
Ruling
1. By notice of motion dated 15. 2.2023, the court is asked to order the OCS Kiirua Police Station to facilitate the delivery of vacant possession of LR No. Kiirua/Naari/Maitei/59. The grounds are set out on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit of Martin Koome Kiambati.
2. The applicant states that judgment was delivered on 13. 7.2022, but the respondent has failed to honor it by giving up vacant possession. Instead, he continues to reap rental benefits from third parties.
3. In reply to the application, the respondent says no three-month notice has been given to him and has acquiesced to his occupation; he was a law-abiding citizen; the application was brought with ulterior motives to gain collateral advantage and, therefore, was unmerited.
4. In the judgment delivered on 13. 7.2023, a permanent injunction was issued against the respondent for trespassing or interfering with the applicant's quiet enjoyment and occupation of the suit premises. Ownership of the suit land by the applicant was also determined.
5. By a ruling dated 15. 2.2022, this court declined to stay the decree dated 2. 8.2022, whose effect was for the respondent to deliver up vacant possession forthwith and as is indicated above, restrained the respondent from entering or interfering with the land. Court orders are not made in vain. It is over a year after the decree was issued. No just cause has been given as to why the respondent, with impunity, has refused to honor the decree and give vacant possession or to stop any acts of trespass or interference with the suit land. See David Oyiare Ntungani vs Matuiya Ole (2019) eKLR.
6. In the absence of stay orders, I allow the application. The respondent shall hand over to the plaintiffs/applicants vacant possession of LR No. Kiirua/Naari/Maitei/59 within seven days, in default of which he shall be evicted at his own cost and expenses.
7. The OCS Kiirua Police Station, for purposes of order and peace, will assist in evicting the defendant/respondent from the parcel of land known as LR No. Kiirua/Naari/Maitei/59. The respondent shall meet the costs of this application and the expenses of the exercise.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERU ON THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023In presence ofC.A Kananu/MukamiPartiesGikundi for the plaintiffWambua for defendantHON. CK NZILIJUDGE