[2025] KEELC 3520 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated entitlement to the orders sought, as there was a valid and unexecuted court order for eviction dated 14th February 2024. The respondent, despite being served, failed to comply with the order or oppose the application. The court emphasized that a decree holder is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3520 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Timothy Wanjala Wekesa; Applicant: Timpech Auctioneers; Respondent: Kipruto Tanui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E013 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Police Assistance in Execution of Eviction Order
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Decree Execution, Court Order Enforcement, Police Assistance, Injunction Compliance
- 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
Timothy Wanjala Wekesa
Applicant
Timpech Auctioneers
Applicant
Kipruto Tanui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Police Assistance in Execution of Eviction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to police assistance in executing the eviction order dated 14th February 2024.
- 2 Whether the respondent's continued occupation in defiance of the court order justifies the grant of the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated entitlement to the orders sought, as there was a valid and unexecuted court order for eviction dated 14th February 2024. The respondent, despite being served, failed to comply with the order or oppose the application. The court emphasized that a decree holder is entitled to the fruits of their judgment and that the court must facilitate the execution of its orders. The application was not stale, and the applicants' request for police assistance was necessary to ensure compliance and effectuate the eviction. Accordingly, the court allowed the application as prayed, granting the applicants police protection during execution.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Kapsabet town Police Station to provide adequate security to Timpech Auctioneers while executing the decree and eviction orders dated 14th February 2024.
- Any other orders deemed fit by the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Wekesa & another v Tanui (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3520 (KLR) (5 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3520 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E013 of 2025
GMA Ongondo, J
May 5, 2025
Between
Timothy Wanjala Wekesa
1st Applicant
Timpech Auctioneers
2nd Applicant
and
Kipruto Tanui
Respondent
Ruling
1. The instant ruling is in respect of an application dated 17th March 2025 by the applicant through Kipngeno and Associates Advocates for the following orders;a.This Honourable Court be pleased to Order the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Kapsabet town Police Station to provide adequate security to TIMPECH AUCTIONEERS, the Applicant herein while executing the decree and eviction Orders herein the same dated 14th February,2024 by the Court on the 1st April, 2025 and/or any day thereabout.b.Any other Orders deemed fit by court.c.Costs be provided for.
2. The application is premised upon the applicant’s supporting affidavit together with the accompanying documents inclusive of the Judgment delivered on 14th February 2024 and the notice dated 22nd May 2024 herein. Also, the same is founded on the grounds, inter alia;a.There is a Court Order dated 14th February,2024 in favour of the plaintiff ripe for execution and the same is yet to be executed.b.The Defendant, despite being ordered by this Court vide a permanent injunction, not to continue being in physical possession of the suit property, he has not complied with the said Orders which occupation is prejudicial to the plaintiff decree holder, prompting this application.
3. The respondent was duly served with the application as disclosed in the affidavit of service sworn on 1st May 2025 herein.
4. Mr Maritim instructed by Mr Kipngeno learned counsel for the applicant has urged the court to grant prayer number two in the application.
5. In that regard, is there merit in the application?
6. The respondent having been made aware of the existence of the application, opted not to respond to the same as noted by the Court of Appeal in Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) eKLR.
7. The applicant’s lamentation is that the respondent has neglected to comply with the orders of the court given on 14th February 2024 which are due for execution.
8. This application does not relate to a stale claim; see Mehta -vrs- Shah (1963) EA 321. So, the applicant is entitled to the decree which has to be made effectual.
9. In the premises, the application is steadfast, cogent and meritorious.
10. Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed in terms of the second order sought therein as set out in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2025. G M A ONGONDOJUDGEPresent;1. Mr. Maritim holding brief for Kipngeno for applicant.2. Respondent absent