Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment and Land Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 15741 (KLR)

Stringslel Limited v Kamotho & 9 others

Environment and Land Court
23 February 2023
2,144 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner lost its eviction bid because it skipped the mandatory three-month notice procedure required by the Land Act before evicting occupants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Stringsfilel Limited, the registered proprietor of Naivasha Municipality Block5/386 under a certificate of lease issued on November 23, 2021, moved the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru by notice of motion dated October 6, 2022 seeking eviction of ten respondents and the assistance of Naivasha police commanders in enforcing the eviction. The applicant relied on orders allegedly made on April 30, 2020 in ELC No. 89 of 2019 (Samuel Njogu Kamotho & 43 others v KANU), under which the respondents were said to have been ordered to vacate, after which KANU sold the land to the applicant. The respondents, though served, filed no response and did not appear. L. A. Omollo J framed two issues: whether eviction orders should issue and who should bear costs. The court held that although the certificate of lease proved ownership, the applicant had not evidenced strict compliance with the pre-eviction notice procedure in section 152E of the Land Act, including the three-month written notice, publication for large groups and service on the deputy county commissioner and police. Further, the annexed ruling from ELC No. 89 of 2019 showed only dismissal of an injunction application for want of a prima facie case, and there was no evidence of any final orders to vacate, nor that the applicant was a party to or beneficiary of that suit. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs on February 23, 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether eviction orders should issue against the Respondents

Holding

Eviction orders refused because the applicant failed to comply with section 152E of the Land Act and failed to prove the prior orders and its standing under them

Reasoning

The court held that ownership alone is insufficient: a certificate of lease established ownership, but the applicant did not show service of the statutory eviction notice of not less than three months, its publication and service on the deputy county commissioner and police. Further, the ruling annexed from ELC No. 89 of 2019 showed only dismissal of an injunction application, not the vacation orders claimed.

p. 5
02

Costs of the application

Holding

No order as to costs despite the applicant's reliance on section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

Having failed on the substantive application, the applicant did not earn the costs of a successful party. The court dismissed the application with no order as to costs, departing from the applicant's submission that a successful party is entitled to costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An owner seeking eviction of unlawful occupants must strictly comply with the statutory pre-eviction notice procedure under section 152E of the Land Act before eviction orders can issue
  • A party relying on orders in a previous suit must attach evidence of those orders and of its own standing as a party to or beneficiary of them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated October 6, 2022 is dismissed with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1B
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 3A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 63E
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Land Actsection 15A
  • Land Actsection 152A
  • Land Actsection 152B
  • Land Actsection 152E
  • Land Actsection 152F
  • Land Actsection 152G

Cases cited (6)

  • Lucy Ghati vs Alex Wambura John & another
    (2010) eKLR

    eviction orders

  • Josphat Kurai Gathoni vs James Maina Njoroge & 3 others
    (2019) eKLR

    eviction orders

  • Teachers Service Commission-vs- Kenya National Union of teachers & 2 others
    (2013) eKLR

    definition of contempt and disobedience of court orders

  • African Management Communication International Limited vs Joseph Mathenge Mugo & another
    (2013) eKLR

    contempt of court

  • Levben Products vs Alexander Films (SA) (PTY) Ltd
    1957 (4) SA 225 (SR) AT 227

    judicious exercise of discretion in awarding costs

  • Cecilia Karuru Ngayu vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & another
    (2016) eKLR

    successful party's entitlement to costs absent misconduct or vexatious conduct

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63E of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 15A, 152A, 152B, 152E and 152G of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stringslel Limited v Kamotho & 9 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15741/eng@2023-02-23

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