Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC MISC APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2021· [2021] KEELC 28 (KLR)

Grace Wangari Mureithi v David Njoroge [2021] KEELC 28 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 November 2021
LOL. A. Omollo
1,609 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner who proves ownership, serves a valid three-month eviction notice, and follows the Land Act procedure will get an eviction order — even unopposed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (L. A. Omollo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 19 July 2021 by Grace Wangari Mureithi, administrator and beneficiary of the estate of Peter Mureithi Mungai (deceased), seeking an eviction order and vacant possession of Plot 16 C Block Gilgil Township from David Njoroge, under sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 152E and 152F of the Land Act 2012. The applicant deposed that the land was allotted to the deceased and one Moses Waruiko; that the respondent invaded and began developing it in 2019; that an eviction notice dated 30 October 2019 was served on him on 5 November 2019; and that he refused to vacate, denying the beneficiaries use of the land. The respondent filed no response despite being served and appearing through counsel once to seek time. The court framed the twin issues of whether the application was merited and costs. It found ownership demonstrated, the three-month eviction notice properly served including on the Deputy County Commissioner Gilgil and OCPD Gilgil, and noted that nearly two years had elapsed without the respondent vacating or seeking relief under section 152F. Allowing the application, the court ordered the respondent evicted and to give vacant possession, with costs to the applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant was entitled to an eviction order against the respondent under sections 152E and 152F of the Land Act

Holding

The application was allowed; the applicant proved ownership, served a valid eviction notice more than three months before, properly served the respondent and the Deputy County Commissioner and OCPD, and the respondent neither vacated nor sought relief under section 152F.

Reasoning

The court found the applicant demonstrated ownership of the suit land and had served an eviction notice on 5 November 2019, nearly two years before the ruling. Service on the respondent, the Deputy County Commissioner Gilgil and the OCPD was proved by affidavit and stamps. The respondent was served with the application, appeared through counsel once seeking time, but filed no response and never moved the court for relief against the notice under section 152F, squandering that opportunity to his detriment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The first step in an eviction from private land under section 152E of the Land Act is service on the unlawful occupier of an eviction notice of not less than three months, after which the occupier may apply to court for relief under section 152F.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent be evicted from and give vacant possession of the land parcel Plot 16 C BLOCK GILGIL Township
  2. 2.The Applicant shall have the costs of this application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Land Act 2012Sections 152E and 152F
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and Sections 152E and 152F of the Land Act 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

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, "Grace Wangari Mureithi v David Njoroge [2021] KEELC 28 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC MISC APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/28/eng@2021-11-29

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