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 on the face of the ruling· [2025] KEELC 7929 (KLR)

Meritei & 62 others v Land Registrar Kajiado & another (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7929 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2025
LKL. KOMINGOI
1,525 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court ruled that being cleared in a criminal case does not undo a civil land judgment, ordering 61 defendants to vacate within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (L. Komingoi, J) determined two competing Notices of Motion arising from a judgment entered on 14th November 2024 in favour of the plaintiff over land known as Kajiado/Kaputiei North/6386. The plaintiff's application dated 9th July 2025 sought vacant possession and eviction of the 1st to 61st Defendants with police assistance. The defendants' application dated 14th July 2025, supported by the affidavit of the 1st Defendant, sought review or setting aside of the judgment on the ground that their acquittal in a related criminal case constituted new and important matter under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court identified the sole issue as whether the defendants had made out a good case for review. It noted that an earlier application to set aside the same judgment had been dismissed by ruling dated 26th June 2025, and that no appeal had been preferred against the judgment. Relying on EACC v Otieno & 5 others (2023) KEHC 783 (KLR), the court held that a criminal acquittal does not invalidate civil findings, since the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt while civil cases require proof on a balance of probabilities. The acquittal was therefore not new evidence. The review application was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff's application was allowed: the defendants were directed to give vacant possession within thirty days, failing which the plaintiff may evict through lawful means, with the OCS Kitengela Police Station to ensure peace and order, and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a criminal acquittal constitutes new and important matter sufficient for review of a civil judgment under Order 45

Holding

No - the acquittal does not invalidate the civil findings because the burden of proof differs between criminal and civil proceedings

Reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning in EACC v Otieno that criminal acquittals do not absolve civil liability, since criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while civil cases require proof on a balance of probabilities. The acquittal of the 1st to 3rd Defendants therefore does not constitute new evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been produced before the judgment, and review under Order 45 rule 1 fails.

p. 4
02

Whether a judgment holder with no appeal against it should be left to enjoy the fruits of his judgment

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff, having judgment unchallenged by appeal, was granted vacant possession within 30 days with police assistance

Reasoning

The court noted the judgment dated 14th November 2024 had not been appealed against and an earlier application to set it aside had already been dismissed on 26th June 2025. A successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment, so the plaintiff's application for vacant possession and eviction assistance was allowed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not absolve an accused person of civil liability because the standards of proof differ

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025 seeking review of the judgment dated 14th November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
  2. 2.The 1st to 61st Defendants are directed to give vacant possession of the land known as Kajiado/Kaputiei – North/6386 to the plaintiff within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.In default, the plaintiff be at liberty to evict the 1st to 61st Defendants through lawful means
  4. 4.The OCS Kitengela Police Station to ensure peace and order during the said eviction
  5. 5.Costs of the application dated 9th July 2025 to be borne by the 1st to 61st Defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 34, 63, 80
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 rule 1, Order 51 rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (7)

  • Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • EACC v Otieno & 5 Others
    (2023) KEHC 783 (KLR)
  • Stephen Gathua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi T/a Providence Auctioneers
    Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2012
  • Ebei Korodi Cloprita v Margaret Naliaka & 2 Others
    (2020) eKLR
  • Bryan Michael Rickis v James Chepkoiywa & Another
    ELC Case No. 232 of 2023
  • Grace Maundu Kilungya v Matheka Makuthi & Another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Esther Ngonyo Gitaru v Dominic Chege Gitari
    Busia ELC No. E040 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 34, 63 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Meritei & 62 others v Land Registrar Kajiado & another (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7929 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7929/eng@2025-11-13

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