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 on face of ruling· [2018] KEELC 3126 (KLR)

Isadia Wasangale v Hellenah Muhiga [2018] KEELC 3126 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
30 May 2018
NMN. A. Matheka
647 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

#

The High Court ordered police to forcefully evict a woman who ignored a 2015 court order to vacate land in Kakamega, and she must pay the legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance enforcement ruling by the High Court at Kakamega (N. A. Matheka, J) on a notice of motion dated 29th May 2017 brought under Order 21 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff, Isadia Wa Sangale, sought an eviction order for the forceful ejection of the defendant, together with her servants, employees, relatives and agents, from land parcel No. Tiriki/Shamakhokho/952, demolition of structures she had erected thereon (including a pit latrine and urinal pit), and an order directing the O.C.S. Seremi Police Station to effect the eviction. The application followed a judgment and decree of the same court delivered on 17th March 2015, which gave the defendant three months, expiring 17th June 2015, to vacate the land and remove the structures, failing which she would be forcefully evicted. The plaintiff explained that attempts to enforce through Seremi Police Station were unsuccessful because the officer commanding station required an eviction order. The defendant did not oppose the application. The court noted that the three-month period had long expired and the defendant remained in defiant occupation. Finding the application unopposed and meritorious, the judge granted it as prayed: eviction order with demolition of structures, police enforcement by the O.C.S. Seremi, and costs of the application to the defendant. The ruling ends: 'It is so ordered.'

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an eviction order should issue in enforcement of a decree

Holding

The court found the application had merit and granted it as prayed, directing forceful eviction and demolition of structures.

Reasoning

The judgment of 17th March 2015 gave the defendant three months to vacate and remove structures. That period had long expired yet she remained in trespass. The applicant needed an eviction order to enable police enforcement and to enjoy the fruits of successful litigation. The application was unopposed and the court file confirmed the terms of the decree.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An unopposed application for eviction under Order 21 rule 29 will be granted where the judgment debtor has defied a valid decree requiring vacation of the land within the period fixed by the court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Eviction order issued for the forceful ejection of the defendant, her servants, employees, relatives, agents and anybody claiming through her from parcel No. Tiriki/Shamakhokho/952
  2. 2.Structures erected by the defendant on the suit land to be demolished
  3. 3.O.C.S. Seremi Police Station to effect the eviction order
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be borne by the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 29
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 21 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Isadia Wasangale v Hellenah Muhiga [2018] KEELC 3126 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated on face of ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3126/eng@2018-05-30

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