AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (application dated 1 November 2018)· [2019] KEELC 2052 (KLR)
Lucy Wanjiru Kibisu(Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Joyce Wangari Kibisu) v Charles Miyenda Chore [2019] KEELC 2052 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Munyao Sila J) on an application dated 1 November 2018 by the plaintiff seeking security from the OCS Naishi Police Station for the eviction of the defendant from Business Plot No. 239 Nguriga, Njoro. Judgment had already been entered for the plaintiff on 16 November 2017, giving the respondent 14 days to vacate and awarding the plaintiff Kshs. 100,000 as general damages for trespass. The respondent did not vacate. He did not formally respond to the application, but had proposed purchasing the property, which came to nothing. At the hearing he asserted he had paid the applicant for the sale of the property; counsel for the applicant clarified that the payment was in respect of the damages for trespass. The court found the respondent had given no reason to deny the eviction order, was not persuaded that any purchase payment had been made, and held that sufficient time had been given for voluntary vacation. The court issued an eviction order, granted the applicant liberty to appoint a court bailiff or licensed auctioneer to execute the warrant, ordered the OCS Naishi Police Station to provide security during the eviction, and directed that the costs of the eviction exercise and of the application be borne by the respondent. Orders were made on 25 July 2019.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether eviction order and police security should issue following unexecuted judgment for vacant possession
Holding
Application allowed; respondent to be evicted with police security, costs to respondent.
Reasoning
Judgment had been entered on 16 November 2017 ordering the respondent to vacate within 14 days, failing which eviction would issue, plus Kshs. 100,000 general damages for trespass. The respondent did not vacate. His assertion of payment towards purchase was contradicted by the applicant's counsel, and the court found the Kshs. 100,000 was payment of the damages awarded. Sufficient time for voluntary vacation had elapsed.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- A judgment-holder entitled to vacant possession may obtain an eviction order with police security where the judgment-debtor fails to vacate voluntarily.
Court orders
#- 1.Order of eviction of the defendant/respondent from the suit property (Business Plot No. 239 Nguriga, Njoro)
- 2.Liberty for the applicant to appoint a court bailiff or licensed auctioneer to execute the warrant of eviction
- 3.The OCS of Naishi Police Station ordered to give requisite security during the eviction exercise
- 4.Costs of the eviction exercise and of the application borne by the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement of eviction judgment of the Environment and Land Court (ruling on application dated 1 November 2018); no specific constitutional/statutory provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Wanjiru Kibisu(Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Joyce Wangari Kibisu) v Charles Miyenda Chore [2019] KEELC 2052 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (application dated 1 November 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2052/eng@2019-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.