[2005] KEHC 769 (KLR)
The court held that since the order requiring the applicant to vacate the land and put Armstrong Kasuku in possession has not been set aside, appealed, or reviewed, it remains valid and must be obeyed. The warrants of arrest were issued in pursuance of this valid order, and there is no legal basis to set them aside....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 769 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilson Kipmagut Arap Soi; Respondent: Armstrong Kasuku; Respondent: Agricultural Finance Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 518 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrants of Arrest
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Court Orders, Warrants of Arrest, Possession of Land
- 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
Wilson Kipmagut Arap Soi
Applicant
Armstrong Kasuku
Respondent
Agricultural Finance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrants of Arrest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the warrants of arrest issued on 5th August, 2005 should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief pending the hearing of other suits in other courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the order requiring the applicant to vacate the land and put Armstrong Kasuku in possession has not been set aside, appealed, or reviewed, it remains valid and must be obeyed. The warrants of arrest were issued in pursuance of this valid order, and there is no legal basis to set them aside. The applicant's arguments regarding other suits or reasons for delay are irrelevant to the enforcement of the current valid order. The application to set aside the warrants is therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application to set aside the warrants of arrest is dismissed.
- The applicant shall pay costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBICivil Suit 518 of 2004WILSON KIPMAGUT ARAP SOI …………………………………….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
ARMSTRONG KASUKU
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION ..……………….. RESPONDENTS
RULING
This is an application seeking in prayer 2 that “warrants of arrest issued on 5th August, 2005 be set aside”. It is not clear precisely what Rule it seeks to invoke. However, Orders L and XVI are cited, without the applicable rule.
In any event, the facts leading to this application are simple. By an Order of this Court (Hon. Ransley, J) dated the 3rd May, 2005, the Applicant here was required to vacate the suit land (being L. R. No. 94827) within 60 days of that Order and to put one Armstrong F. Kasuku in possession of the same. In default the applicant “shall be detained in prison for a term not exceeding six (6) months”.
This Order followed the purchase of the suit land by the aforesaid Mr. Kasuku in a public auction. The latter is now the registered owner of the suit land, and is making every effort to obtain possession of the same. After failing in all his attempts, he obtained the above court order. This Order is clear in its wording. It has not been set aside, nor appealed against, nor is there an application to review the same. It is a valid Order of this court. There is no dispute about that.
Accordingly, and until it is set aside, it must be obeyed. Therefore, the warrants of arrest issued in pursuance to the said Order are valid, and I see no reason and no legal basis to set aside the same. The applicant’s long narration of reasons why the warrants should be set aside, or await the hearing of other suits in other courts, is a red herring. Here, before me, is a valid Court Order, and valid warrants of arrest. The Applicant must obey the same.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 8th day of November, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE