Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 (in the suit determined by Munyao J on 29th June 2017)· [2019] KEELC 1779 (KLR)

Mary Waithera Muiruri v Kuria Ng’ang’a [2019] KEELC 1779 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 September 2019
1,029 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Ohungo J, 18 September 2019) determined the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 seeking eviction warrants pursuant to a decree of Munyao J delivered on 29th June 2017, under which the plaintiff, registered proprietor of two parcels in Nyandarua, obtained a permanent injunction and general damages of Kshs 100,000 against the defendant, her brother-in-law, who had occupied and cultivated the land after his licence was revoked. The defendant was served but neither responded nor attended the hearing. The court noted that a decree had been extracted, and that the defendant's application for stay of execution pending appeal had been dismissed on 3rd July 2019, and accepted that the decree remained unsatisfied. However, the court identified a procedural defect: Order 22 Rules 6 and 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules require an application for execution to be made to the court that passed the decree, in the prescribed form and with tabulated particulars, and no such application appeared on the record. Observing that procedure is the handmaiden of substance, and that the Deputy Registrar is better placed to verify the standing of the auctioneer, the court declined to issue warrants immediately. It ordered the plaintiff to comply with the execution procedure, upon which eviction warrants would issue to the named auctioneer or another duly licensed auctioneer, with police security from the OCS Mirangi-ini Police Station during execution, and awarded the plaintiff the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Compliance with execution procedure before issuance of eviction warrants

Holding

Eviction warrants cannot issue directly on a motion without the execution application prescribed by Order 22 Rules 6 and 7(2); the court directed compliance first, then issuance of warrants

Reasoning

The court noted that Order 22 Rule 6 requires an application for execution to the court that passed the decree, in Form No. 14 of Appendix A, and Rule 7(2) requires written applications with tabulated particulars. No such application appeared on the record. The court reasoned that these requirements serve legitimate purposes, including verification of the auctioneer's standing and payment of execution fees, and that the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice by complying. It therefore allowed the application only conditionally, ordering compliance before warrants issue.

p. 2
02

Uncontested application for eviction warrants and police security

Holding

The served defendant did not respond or attend, so the court accepted the decree was unsatisfied and saw no reason to refuse the application, subject to procedural compliance

Reasoning

The court recorded that the defendant, though served, neither filed a response nor attended the hearing. Given the prior dismissal of the defendant's stay application on 3rd July 2019, the court inferred the decree remained unsatisfied and was inclined to grant the orders sought, tempered only by the requirement to follow the execution procedure. It granted police security for the execution.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for execution of a decree must be made to the court which passed the decree in accordance with Order 22 Rule 6 and Form No. 14 of Appendix A, and must contain the particulars required by Order 22 Rule 7(2)
  • Procedure is the handmaiden of substance and execution procedure must be complied with before warrants issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff to comply with the procedure for execution of decrees under Order 22 Rules 6 and 7(2)
  2. 2.Upon such compliance, eviction warrants pursuant to the decree made on 29.6.2017 to be issued to Waruinge Peter Waititu t/a Digit Auctioneers of P.O Box 780-20300 Nairobi or such other duly licensed auctioneer
  3. 3.The officer commanding Mirangi-ini Police Station to provide security and maintain peace during execution of the eviction warrants
  4. 4.Costs of the application to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 7(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Enforcement of decree under Order 22 Rules 6 and 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules in the court which passed the decree

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mary Waithera Muiruri v Kuria Ng’ang’a [2019] KEELC 1779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 (in the suit determined by Munyao J on 29th June 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1779/eng@2019-09-18

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