Meso Multi Purpose Society Ltd v Luore Nyairo Company & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2008) [2026] KEELC 3848 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped a company from evicting over 3,000 people, holding that even a winning land decree must follow eviction laws, including 90 days' notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Change of advocates post-judgment under Order 9 Rule 9
Leave could not be granted because there was no evidence of service on, or consent by, the former advocate (Appollo Ambutsi & Co. Advocates) or the holder of the Special Power of Attorney, and the supporting affidavit omitted material facts
Order 9 Rule 9 requires a post-judgment change of advocate to be effected by court order or consent upon notice to all parties. The court file showed the applicant was represented by Appollo Ambutsi & Co. Advocates at taxation and that Philip Okoth Okundi had granted an irrevocable Special Power of Attorney to Raphael Achieng Ololo. None was served or consented, and the supporting affidavit was silent on these material facts, breaching the duty of full disclosure and good faith.
Compliance with execution and eviction procedure
Warrants of eviction could not issue because no notice to show cause or notice to vacate had been served as required under Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act read with Orders 22 and 49, and the mandatory 90 days' notice for lawful eviction had not been given
The decree dated 25/3/2020 was over a year old, triggering Order 22 Rule 18's notice to show cause. Delivery of possession of immovable property under Order 22 Rules 19 and 20 requires affixing of a warrant on the property. Additionally, eviction from private land requires the mandatory 90 days' notice under the land laws, which had not been served on the over 3,000 members of the plaintiff on the land. An existing decree does not dispense with these procedural safeguards.
Whether an intended appeal to the Supreme Court stays execution
The court did not uphold this ground as a basis for refusal, instead dismissing the application on the grounds of incompetence of the law firm on record and non-compliance with execution law; the plaintiff's reliance on an intended appeal was part of its opposition which the court found merited only insofar as stated above
The plaintiff argued its intended approach to the Supreme Court should operate as a stay. The court found the plaintiff's grounds on incompetence, lack of eviction-law compliance and abuse of process merited. An intended appeal is not per se a stay of execution, but the court grounded the dismissal on procedural non-compliance by the applicant rather than on the plaintiff's appellate plans.
Legal principles established
#- A decree-holder is not absolved from complying with procedural law on execution and lawful eviction, including the mandatory 90 days' notice, merely because a decree for vacant possession exists
- The burden of proving consent of the outgoing advocate and any party on record to a post-judgment change of advocates lies on the applicant
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs
- 2.The file is marked closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court; application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meso Multi Purpose Society Ltd v Luore Nyairo Company & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2008) [2026] KEELC 3848 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3848/eng@2026-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.