Ogeto & 2 others v Nur & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 436 of 2009) [2025] KEELC 1284 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court evicted occupants who waited seven years to challenge a land judgment, ruling that unexplained delay loses you your legal rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendants' seven-year delay in seeking stay and leave to appeal out of time should be excused
The delay was not excused; the application for stay and leave was dismissed
The Defendants filed their stay application seven years after judgment and never filed a notice of appeal within the statutory 14 days. Their explanation rested on an alleged oral promise by one Plaintiff not to evict them, but they did not say when the promise was made nor produce any evidence of it. A prudent person aware of an existing decree would have reduced such a promise to writing or recorded a consent in court. They moved only after the Plaintiffs sought eviction.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to eviction orders
Eviction orders were granted; the judgment of 22nd September 2017 ordered the Defendants to vacate and an eviction notice had been served and ignored
The application was brought under Sections 150, 152A and 152B of the Land Act, 2012 (as amended) and Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It was common ground that the 2017 judgment was in the Plaintiffs' favour and ordered the Defendants to vacate, and that eviction notices had been served yet the Defendants continued in unlawful occupation. The application was therefore properly before the court and the eviction orders should issue.
Costs of the applications
Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs in accordance with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Although costs are discretionary, the general rule is that costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. The Plaintiffs were successful on both applications and there was no good reason to depart from the general rule.
Legal principles established
#- Where there is delay, even for one day, there must be some explanation for it, otherwise an extension may not be granted
- Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent; delay defeats equity
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendants' application dated 14th November 2024 dismissed with costs
- 2.Eviction orders issued in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants from land title no. LR NO. 209/10939
- 3.Costs of the Plaintiffs' application awarded to the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- The court exercised continuing supervisory/execution jurisdiction over its decree in land title LR NO. 209/10939, under Sections 150, 152A, 152B of the Land Act, 2012 and Sections 1A, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogeto & 2 others v Nur & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 436 of 2009) [2025] KEELC 1284 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1284/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.