Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtPartially Allowed

In re Enforcement of Eviction Order over Land Parcel No. Kakamega/Shiru/902 (Contempt Application)

High Court of Kenya
28 July 2020
NMN. A. Matheka
399 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If there is confusion over which police station enforces an eviction order, the court will amend the order rather than finding anyone in contempt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a contempt application dated 22nd May 2020 in which the applicant sought to have a cited party joined to the summons and to have the cited party, the officer commanding Shisasari police station, held in contempt for disobeying an eviction order issued on 22nd November 2019 over land parcel No. Kakamega/Shiru/902, together with a further order of 23rd April 2020. The applicant submitted that the orders were served on the officer for action on 18th March 2020 and 23rd April 2020 but were never executed despite follow-up. The respondent acknowledged service of the order dated 22nd November 2019 directed to the O.C.S. or O.C.P.D. Kakamega police station to enforce, but submitted that the delay in execution was not intentional and asked that the order be amended to read that the eviction be enforced and supervised by the OCS Shinyalu Police Station or OCPD Kakamega East, under whose jurisdiction the land is located. The court perused the file, noted that it had issued an eviction order on 20th March 2019 which was to be stayed for six months, and found confusion as to which police station was to execute the order. Rather than finding the cited party in contempt, the court ordered that the eviction order be amended to read OCS Shinyalu Police Station and made no orders as to costs. Judgment was delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega on 28th July 2020 by N.A. Matheka J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the cited police officer was in contempt of the eviction order

Holding

The court did not find contempt; it identified confusion over the executing police station and amended the order to name OCS Shinyalu Police Station.

Reasoning

The applicant showed the eviction order of 22nd November 2019 and a further order were served on the O.C.S. Shisasari for action on 18th March 2020 and 23rd April 2020 but were not executed. The respondent explained the delay was not intentional and sought amendment so enforcement lay with the station under whose jurisdiction the land falls. The court, perusing the file, found confusion on the executing station and amended the order rather than imposing contempt remedies.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is confusion as to which police station is to execute an eviction order, the court may amend the order to name the correct station within whose jurisdiction the land lies.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the eviction order be amended to read OCS Shinyalu Police Station
  2. 2.No orders as to costs for this application
Jurisdiction invoked
Contempt of court jurisdiction over disobedience of court orders (eviction order issued by this court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "In re Enforcement of Eviction Order over Land Parcel No. Kakamega/Shiru/902 (Contempt Application)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source:

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