[2022] KEELC 908 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 908 (KLR)

The court held that it could not grant an eviction order post-judgment because such relief was neither pleaded in the plaint nor granted in the original decree. The court, having delivered final judgment, was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to modify or expand the reliefs granted. Any attempt to do so would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 908 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sammy Inguvu Isigi; Defendant: Alphonis Samuel Makomere
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 26 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Applications for Eviction and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Both applications dismissed or struck out; no order as to costs.
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Stay of Execution, Tenancy Termination, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Orders Stay of Execution Tenancy Termination Jurisdiction 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sammy Inguvu Isigi

Plaintiff

Alphonis Samuel Makomere

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Applications for Eviction and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an eviction order post-judgment where such relief was neither pleaded nor granted in the original decree.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal despite delay and lack of demonstrated substantial loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it could not grant an eviction order post-judgment because such relief was neither pleaded in the plaint nor granted in the original decree. The court, having delivered final judgment, was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to modify or expand the reliefs granted. Any attempt to do so would be a nullity. Regarding the defendant's application for stay of execution, the court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, had delayed unreasonably in bringing the application, and had not provided security as required by law. Furthermore, since no eviction order was part of the decree, the defendant's fear of eviction was unfounded. Both applications...

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed or struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2021 is struck out.
  • Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2021 is dismissed.