Muasya v Kioko (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E027 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4703 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order of eviction and demolition against the Respondent in enforcement of the decree in Machakos ELCC No. 60 of 2010
- 2.Whether the Respondent remained in possession of the suit property
- 3.Whether the eviction notice complied with Section 152E of the Land Act
- 4.Whether the court should provide police security for the eviction
Key legal issues
#Enforcement of a final decree through the Land Act eviction provisions
The application seeking eviction is an enforcement of the final decree in Machakos ELCC No. 60 of 2010 and is competent under the Land Act.
The court found that judgment had been delivered for the Applicant on 4th May 2018 with a permanent injunction, and that the Respondent's appeal was dismissed on 23rd February 2024. The eviction notice issued on 29th May 2025 complied with Section 152E of the Land Act, and the application gives effect to the final decree.
Whether the Respondent had vacated the land
The court rejected the Respondent's claim that he had vacated, finding no evidence of vacatur and no prejudice to him.
The Respondent averred he was not in possession and that one Nzilani Muoki occupied the land, but produced no evidence of having vacated. The court held there was no justification for the Respondent to remain and that granting the application occasioned no prejudice, invoking the inherent jurisdiction and the need to end litigation.
Legal principles established
#- A successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of his judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of eviction and demolition of unauthorized structures issued against the 1st Respondent from the whole of land parcel LR No. MAKUENI/UNOA/58
- 2.The application is granted as prayed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152(2)(a) of the Land Act, 2012; Sections 2A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the result, the application is merited and it is granted as prayed.
It is not in question that the Applicant is entitled to the fruits of her judgment and that the application herein seeks to give efiect to the final decree of the Environment and Land Court in Machakos.
The Respondent did not avail evidence of having vacated the land as alleged in his replying afidavit. There is no justification for the Respondent to remain in the suit property and no prejudice will be occasioned on the Respondent if the application is granted. Litigation must come to an end.
Issues in the judgment
#Deponent's name appears as 'Mbwele Muoki Muasya' in one passage but 'Mbweke Muoki Muasya' in the party/title and prayers.
The judgment describes the earlier suit variously as 'Machakos HCCC No. 60 of 2010' and 'Machakos ELCC No. 60 of 2010'.
The Respondent's replying affidavit is dated 16th February, 2026 while the Applicant's submissions are dated 13th April, 2026, yet the judgment is delivered 23rd July, 2026 - dates internally consistent but the chronology is compressed; noted for accuracy only.
The notice of motion is dated 2nd September, 2025 and served with a letter dated 29th May, 2025, but the affidavit in support is sworn 'on even date' (2nd September 2025); consistent. No material contradiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muasya v Kioko (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E027 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4703 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 2nd September, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4703/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.