[2021] KEELC 198 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had a valid and enforceable judgment and decree entitling them to the subdivision of the suit land. The applicants had demonstrated that their attempts to implement the decree had been met with threats and obstruction from the respondents, creating a real risk of physical...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 198 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Zipporah Karigu alias Karigu M’Mugambi Ngiti; Plaintiff: John Mwathi M’Mugambi; Plaintiff: Jeremiah Murauko Mugambi; Plaintiff: Beatrice Gacunku; Plaintiff: David Mutugi Karigu; Plaintiff: Josphat Njeru Kiaya; Defendant: Sabera Gakundi Mwithi; Defendant: Beatrice Kathambi; Defendant: Charity Kaindi; Defendant: Virginia Muthoni; Defendant: John Kimathi; Defendant: Alice Karimi; Defendant: James Mutugi Mwithi; Defendant: Gerald Mugambi; Defendant: James Mwenda Mwithi alias John Kimathi; Defendant: Stanley Murithi Nyamu; Defendant: Mary Wambui Mwobi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Police Security During Execution of Decree
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Judgment, Land Subdivision, Security for Execution, Enforcement of Court Orders
- 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
Zipporah Karigu alias Karigu M’Mugambi Ngiti
Plaintiff
John Mwathi M’Mugambi
Plaintiff
Jeremiah Murauko Mugambi
Plaintiff
Beatrice Gacunku
Plaintiff
David Mutugi Karigu
Plaintiff
Josphat Njeru Kiaya
Plaintiff
Sabera Gakundi Mwithi
Defendant
Beatrice Kathambi
Defendant
Charity Kaindi
Defendant
Virginia Muthoni
Defendant
John Kimathi
Defendant
Alice Karimi
Defendant
James Mutugi Mwithi
Defendant
Gerald Mugambi
Defendant
James Mwenda Mwithi alias John Kimathi
Defendant
Stanley Murithi Nyamu
Defendant
Mary Wambui Mwobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Police Security During Execution of Decree
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to police protection during the implementation of the court's decree for subdivision of land.
- 2 Whether the application for security is merited in light of alleged threats and obstruction by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had a valid and enforceable judgment and decree entitling them to the subdivision of the suit land. The applicants had demonstrated that their attempts to implement the decree had been met with threats and obstruction from the respondents, creating a real risk of physical confrontation. Since the decree had not been set aside, reviewed, or stayed, the court held that it was fair and just to grant the applicants police protection to ensure peaceful execution of the court's orders. The application for provision of security was therefore merited and allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Officer Commanding Tunyai Police Station shall provide security to the applicants during the implementation of the court's decree of 30th July, 2019.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC SUIT NO. 1 OF 2019 (OS)
ZIPPORAH KARIGU ALIAS KARIGU M’MUGAMBI NGITI......................1ST PLAINTIFF
JOHN MWATHI M’MUGAMBI..........................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
JEREMIAH MURAUKO MUGAMBI.................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
BEATRICE GACUNKU.........................................................................................4TH PLAINTIFF
DAVID MUTUGI KARIGU....................................................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
JOSPHAT NJERU KIAYA........................................................................................6TH PLAINTIF
VERSUS
SABERA GAKUNDI MWITHI........................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
BEATRICE KATHAMBI..................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
CHARITY KAINDI............................................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
VIRGINIA MUTHONI......................................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
JOHN KIMATHI...............................................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
ALICE KARIMI.................................................................................................6TH DEFENDANT
JAMES MUTUGI MWITHI.............................................................................7TH DEFENDANT
GERALD MUGAMBI........................................................................................8TH DEFENDANT
JAMES MWENDA MWITHI alias JOHN KIMATHI..................................9TH DEFENDANT
STANLEY MURITHI NYAMU......................................................................10TH DEFENDANT
MARY WAMBUI MWOBI..............................................................................11TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 27th August, 2021, the Defendants/Applicants pray for orders:-
a) Spent
b)That this Honourable court be pleased to make an order that the Police Officer Commanding Tunyai Police Station do provide security to the Applicants when implementing this court’s decree of the Judgment issued herein on 30th July, 2019.
c) That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application which is supported by the affidavit of Sabera Gakundi Mwithi, the 1st Applicant is premised on the grounds that:
(a) This Honourable Court pronounced Judgment on 25th May, 2021, wherein it reinstated its Judgment of 30th July, 2019 to the effect that the Applicants do hold the parcel THARAKA/TUNYAI “A”/390 in common in equal shares.
(b) The Applicants wish to sub-divide the land and allocate the resultant sub-divisions to those entitled.
(c) The Respondents have on many occasions threatened to attack the Applicants if they attempted to sub-divide the land.
(d) That it has therefore become imperative that the Applicants be provided with security to carry out the exercise.
3. The application was served upon the Respondents but they have not filed a response thereto, though their advocate was allowed to submit on points of law.
4. I have considered the application. According to the Applicants, their attempts to bring a surveyor to sub-divide the suit land pursuant to the Judgment and decree of this court has met with obstruction and threats from the Respondents. The Applicants aver that it is only fair that they be given security when effecting the sub divisions to avoid any physical confrontation.
5. Given that the Applicants have a Judgment and decree in their favour which has not been set aside, reviewed or stayed, I believe that it is only fair and just to allow the application so that security is provided when the decree of court is being implemented. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the application dated 27th August, 2021 is merited and the same is allowed.
6. I make no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
CA: NDEGWA
MS. KAJURI FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS
N/A FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
C. K. YANO,
JUDGE.