Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case No. 256 of 2017· [2020] KEELC 1904 (KLR)

John A. Karoli & 3 others v Joseph Chibeyia Makamu [2020] KEELC 1904 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2020
NMN. A. Matheka
478 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court allowed police-assisted eviction because intending to appeal does not excuse ignoring a court order when no stay has been granted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega in an application dated 23rd December 2019 by the defendant, Joseph Chibeyia Makamu, brought under section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. He sought an order compelling the O.C.S Shinyalu Police Station to provide security in enforcement of an eviction order dated 13th September 2019, plus costs. He grounded the application on a judgment entered against the plaintiffs on 9th May 2019, giving them six months to vacate the suit land, which they had not vacated. The plaintiffs (respondents) opposed, stating they had filed a notice of appeal and paid for certified proceedings to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal, that the proceedings had not been supplied due to the volume of work at the court's typing pool, and that eviction would render their appeal academic, render them destitute and occasion them irreparable loss. The court held that judgment had been entered in May 2019, there was no order of stay, and the respondents could not disobey court orders merely by intending to appeal. The application was allowed but the orders were stayed for 90 days due to the prevailing corona virus pandemic. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enforcement of an eviction order where judgment has been entered but no stay exists

Holding

The application for police-assisted enforcement was merited since judgment was entered in May 2019 and the plaintiffs were to vacate within six months, yet remained in occupation without a stay order.

Reasoning

Judgment was entered in May 2019 giving the respondents six months to vacate. They remained in occupation and offered only an intended appeal, with no stay granted. The court held that an intention to appeal does not license disobedience of court orders, allowed the application, but suo motu stayed the orders for 90 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot disobey a court order merely because they intend to appeal, where no stay has been granted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 23rd December 2019 is allowed and the O.C.S Shinyalu Police Station to provide security in enforcement of the eviction order dated 13th September 2019
  2. 2.The orders granted are stayed for 90 days from the date of the ruling due to the prevailing corona virus pandemic
  3. 3.The respondents (plaintiffs) to bear the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John A. Karoli & 3 others v Joseph Chibeyia Makamu [2020] KEELC 1904 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case No. 256 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1904/eng@2020-06-23

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