Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2018] KEELC 1968 (KLR)

Kiprotich Arap Chepkwony v Simon Langat & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1968 (KLR)

Not stated in the judgment (judgment delivered at Kericho)
10 September 2018
JOJ. M Onyango
636 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court ordered respondents evicted from Transmara land, made them pay eviction costs, and confirmed Kenyan courts will enforce ignored judgments.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 7th June 2018 under Order 49 Rules 3 and 7(x) and Order 22 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking an eviction order against the Respondents from L.R No. TRANSMARA/OLOSAKWANA 'B'/29 pursuant to the court's judgment and decree, the appointment of RONBOY Auctioneers of Litein to carry out the eviction, police security from the OCS Emuruo Diker Police Station during the eviction, and costs. The grounds were that the Respondents had been ordered to vacate within 30 days of the judgment of 3rd February 2017, had refused to do so, had threatened violence and resistance, and that security personnel would only act on a specific court order. The application was supported by the applicant's affidavit sworn on 7th June 2018. Despite being granted time, the Defendants filed no replying affidavit, leaving the application unopposed. The court framed two issues: whether the Respondents had been ordered to vacate the suit property pursuant to the judgment of 3rd February 2017, and whether an eviction order ought to issue. Having perused the proceedings and judgment, the court found the Respondents had been ordered to vacate within 30 days and had not done so, observing that court orders must be obeyed and that parties treating them with impunity invite remedial action. The application succeeded in its entirety: an eviction order issued, RONBOY Auctioneers were appointed, the OCS was directed to provide security, and the Respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the eviction exercise and the application. Judgment was delivered at Kericho on 10th September 2018 by J. M Onyango, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents were under an order to vacate the suit property

Holding

The court confirmed that its judgment required the Respondents to vacate within 30 days and that they had not done so.

Reasoning

The judge perused the proceedings and judgment of 3rd February 2017 and found that the Respondents had been ordered to vacate within 30 days of that judgment. Despite the judgment, the Respondents had not vacated the suit land, and the application seeking enforcement was unopposed, with no replying affidavit filed despite being granted time.

p. 2
02

Whether an eviction order should issue

Holding

The court found the Respondents entitled to face an eviction order and granted it, together with appointment of auctioneers and police security.

Reasoning

Having found the Respondents in continued breach of the vacatur order and treating it with impunity, the court held that remedial action was warranted and that the Respondents were entitled to an eviction order. It then allowed the application in its entirety, appointing RONBOY Auctioneers to carry out the eviction and directing the OCS to provide security.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders must be obeyed; where parties against whom orders are made treat them with impunity, the court will take remedial action.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An eviction order issued against the Respondents evicting them from TRANSMARA/OLOSAKWANA 'B'/29 pursuant to the judgment and decree of the court
  2. 2.RONBOY Auctioneers of P.O Box 52 LITEIN appointed to evict the Respondents from L.R No. TRANSMARA/OLOSAKWANA 'B'/29
  3. 3.The Officer Commanding Police Station (OCS) Emuruo Diker Police Station directed to provide security during the eviction exercise
  4. 4.The Respondents to bear the costs of the eviction exercise and of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 49 Rules 3 and 7(x)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 rule 29
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 49 Rules 3 and 7(x) and Order 22 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules (execution/enforcement of the court's own judgment and decree)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiprotich Arap Chepkwony v Simon Langat & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1968 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1968/eng@2018-09-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.