[2017] KEELC 1173 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1173 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with previous court orders requiring the deposit of Kshs.3,000,000 as security for costs and Kshs.100,000 monthly as security for mesne profits. As a result, the respondent's defence stood dismissed by operation of the court's earlier ruling. The respondent did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1173 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Theresa Ojiambo; Defendant: Francis Mwaura Ikinu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 230 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Unopposed Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment allowed; judgment entered for the applicant as per prayers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the application dated 29th March 2017.
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Mesne Profits, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Orders Mesne Profits Summary Judgment Security for Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theresa Ojiambo

Plaintiff

Francis Mwaura Ikinu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Unopposed Summary Judgment Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment for eviction and mesne profits due to the respondent's non-compliance with court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defence stands dismissed for failure to deposit security for costs and mesne profits as ordered by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with previous court orders requiring the deposit of Kshs.3,000,000 as security for costs and Kshs.100,000 monthly as security for mesne profits. As a result, the respondent's defence stood dismissed by operation of the court's earlier ruling. The respondent did not file any response or submissions to the summary judgment application, despite being given an opportunity. The applicant, as the registered owner of the suit property, was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits. The court concluded that there was no defence to the applicant's claim and that this was a clear case for the grant of summary judgment in favour of the...

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment allowed; judgment entered for the applicant as per prayers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the application dated 29th March 2017.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is entered in favour of the applicant.
  • The respondent is ordered to give vacant possession of the suit property to the applicant.