Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 5961 (KLR)

Gatimu & another v Omwenga (Sued on his own Behalf and as Chairman Amani Self Help Group) & 12 others (Environment and Land Case 288 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 5961 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 August 2025
873 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that eviction can proceed after a final judgment even when the winning party's costs have not yet been taxed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st plaintiff/decree holder moved the court by notice of motion dated 7th February 2025 under Sections 1, 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking an order directing the OCS Dandora Police Station to provide security and maintain peace during an eviction to be carried out in execution of the decree in the suit over LR. 209/11970, Dandora estate. Judgment had been entered for the plaintiffs on 21st September 2023, with the defendants given 120 days to vacate, and the decree issued on 18th October 2023. The defendants' appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 24th December 2024, but they remained in occupation. The defendants filed grounds of opposition arguing the motion was premature because costs had not been taxed in compliance with Order 22 Rule 26, and that no document forfeiting costs had been lodged. The 2nd plaintiff supported the application, relying on the Konchellah and Kavu authorities. The defendants did not file submissions. The court framed one issue: whether orders of police assistance ought to issue. It held that execution of the decree was not conditional on taxation of costs, that the defendants had not challenged their occupation, and that lawful execution should proceed as decreed. Allowing the application, the court ordered eviction of the defendants, directed the OCS Dandora Police Station to provide security during the eviction, and awarded the costs of the application and eviction exercise against the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should order police assistance during eviction in execution of the decree

Holding

The application was allowed; an eviction order issued and the OCS Dandora Police Station was directed to provide security and maintain peace during the eviction.

Reasoning

A decree had issued on 18th October 2023 requiring the defendants to vacate within 120 days of the 21st September 2023 judgment, which they did not comply with. The defendants did not challenge their occupation. The Court of Appeal had dismissed their appeal on 24th December 2024. Execution was lawful and not conditional on taxation of costs, and given the crowded location of the property, police presence was warranted to protect the auctioneers and maintain peace.

p. 3
02

Whether the application was premature because costs had not been taxed

Holding

The objection failed; the eviction could proceed notwithstanding that costs had not been taxed.

Reasoning

The defendants argued under Order 22 Rule 26 that the motion was premature since costs were untaxed and no forfeiture of costs was lodged. The court held that execution of the decree was not conditional upon taxation of costs, rejecting the grounds of opposition without more detailed analysis.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution of a decree for eviction is not conditional upon prior taxation of costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of eviction is issued against the defendants from the suit property known as LR. 209/11970 situate in Dandora estate
  2. 2.The OCS Dandora Police Station to provide security and maintain peace during the eviction exercise to be carried in execution of the decree
  3. 3.The costs of the application and the eviction exercise to be borne by the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1, 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 26

Cases cited (2)

  • Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kavu & others v Marogo aka Chibwanda
    Environment & Land Court Case E067 of 2022 [2024] KEELC 7146 (KLR) (29 October, 2024)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1, 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gatimu & another v Omwenga (Sued on his own Behalf and as Chairman Amani Self Help Group) & 12 others (Environment and Land Case 288 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 5961 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5961/eng@2025-08-27

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