Alfred GML v Sheunda (Environment & Land Case 85 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court ordered a man evicted over four years after losing his land case, but refused to grant a new injunction because its work was done.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to eviction orders following non-compliance with a prior judgment
The applicant is entitled to eviction orders because the respondent failed to vacate the suit property within the 60 days allowed by the judgment of 9th December 2020
The court found it undisputed that a judgment of 9th December 2020 declared the respondent not entitled to enter, remain on or use the suit property and ordered him to vacate within 60 days, in default of which eviction orders would issue. The respondent remained on the land over four years past the 9th February 2021 deadline. His defences of trust and adverse possession had already been adjudicated, so the court was functus officio on them, leaving only execution of the judgment.
Whether the court could grant police security during eviction
The applicant is entitled to OCS-provided security during eviction as the respondent had not denied using violence
The court noted the respondent had not denied using violence to continue in violation and disobedience of the judgment, and therefore found the applicant entitled to supervision and security by the OCS Harambee Police Station during the eviction.
Whether the court could grant a permanent injunction at the execution stage
The prayer for permanent injunction was refused because the court is functus officio
The court held that the permanent injunction is a substantive prayer that was not granted in the judgment. Having fully discharged its mandate in determining the dispute, the court had no power to grant what would amount to a fresh claim at the execution stage, relying on the Black's Law Dictionary definition of functus officio.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court has determined a dispute and delivered judgment, it becomes functus officio and cannot entertain fresh substantive claims; what remains is execution of the judgment
- Issues already adjudicated upon and determined in a prior judgment cannot be re-litigated in execution proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.Eviction orders issued against Eliakim Masaka Sheunda, his servants, agents or any other person under his authority from Land Parcel no. N/Wanga/Namamali/985 and vacant possession delivered to the applicant Alfred G.M.L. Shiroya
- 2.The eviction order to be executed by the Court Bailiff, with the O.C.S Harambee Police Station directed to supervise and provide security during the eviction process
- 3.The costs of the eviction and the costs of the application to be borne by the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the execution of its own judgment in a land dispute
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alfred GML v Sheunda (Environment & Land Case 85 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/519/eng@2025-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.