Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 7515 (KLR)

Kerich & another v Langat & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 7515 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2025
LOL. A. Omollo
3,487 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo, J) on the Plaintiffs/Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 25th April 2025 in an undated plaint filed on 26th March 2014 seeking eviction from land parcel Kericho/Chemagel/3070, damages for trespass and costs. Judgment delivered on 13th November 2015 ordered eviction, awarded token damages of Kshs. 25,000 and costs; the defendants never entered appearance. The application sought leave for a new law firm to come on record, extension of the eviction order's validity, service upon the OCS Sotik Police Station, and summons to the OCS and Paul Ole Yiale of Nasioki Auctioneers to explain non-execution of the orders of 4th April 2016. The OCS explained that the plaintiffs could not point out the suit land's boundaries, occupiers held genuine title deeds to other parcels, and the County Surveyor reported two conflicting maps. The auctioneer stated he was always ready but lacked police security. The court granted leave to the incoming firm on the basis of a consent filed under Order 9 Rule 9, but declined to extend the eviction order since the twelve-year period under Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act had not run. It refused to summon the OCS and auctioneer, the plaintiffs having conceded to the OCS's explanation, and declined to order the County Surveyor to establish boundaries because that issue was raised only in submissions. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether incoming advocates should be granted leave to come on record

Holding

Leave granted; a filed consent dated 10th April 2025 between outgoing and incoming firms satisfies Order 9 Rule 9

Reasoning

Order 9 Rule 9 permits a change of advocate after judgment upon a consent filed between the outgoing and incoming advocates. The court record showed a consent dated 10th April 2025 signed by both firms. Following Alice Wambui Nganga v John Ngure Kahoro, and since the prayer was uncontested, leave was granted as a matter of course.

p. 7
02

Whether the 2015 eviction order should be extended

Holding

Refused; the order remains valid within the 12-year limitation period for execution

Reasoning

Relying on Willis Onditi Odhiambo v Gateway Insurance Co Ltd, execution is governed by Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act, allowing twelve years from judgment. Only about ten years had lapsed since the 13th November 2015 judgment, so the orders had not expired and extension was unnecessary.

p. 7
03

Whether summons should issue to the OCS and the auctioneer for non-execution

Holding

Not considered; plaintiffs conceded to the OCS's explanation and abandoned the prayer

Reasoning

Both respondents admitted service and explained obstacles: the plaintiffs could not identify boundaries, occupiers held genuine titles to other parcels, and the County Surveyor reported two conflicting maps for the suit parcel. Given the concession in submissions, the court found it unnecessary to consider whether summons should issue.

p. 8
04

Whether the court could order the County Surveyor to establish boundaries

Holding

Declined; issue raised only in submissions, not pleaded

Reasoning

The application contained no prayer for the County Surveyor to point out boundaries. Following FMS v MAS, submissions are not pleadings and new issues cannot be raised in submissions; the court therefore could not consider the issue on its merits.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution of judgments and decrees is governed by Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act - an action may not be brought upon a judgment after twelve years from the date of delivery
  • A change of advocate after judgment requires an order of the court or a consent between outgoing and incoming advocates under Order 9 Rule 9
  • Submissions are not pleadings and new issues cannot be raised in submissions
  • Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Kipkoech Terer & Associates Advocates to come on record for the Applicants in place of the firm Geoffrey Kipngetich & Co. Advocates
  2. 2.Each party shall bear own costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A & 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 5 Rule 2 & Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kerich & another v Langat & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 7515 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7515/eng@2025-10-30

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