Kuronoi v Kondonyo

3. The Plainti/Applicant further averred that the Defendant/Respondent did not appeal, review, or set aside the said Judgment , although he led applications for a stay of execution and extension of time to le a Notice of appeal out of time, as well as for setting aside proceedings and referring the matter to Alternative Justice Systems (AJS). Both applications were dismissed for lack of merit on 19th December 2023, and 7th May 2024, respectively. 4. The Plainti/Applicant further averred that despite the Defendant/ Respondent being served with an eviction Notice dated 5th June 2023, and certicates of costs and decree, the Defendant/Respondent has refused to vacate the land, and denied the Plainti/Applicant an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. 5. The Plainti/Applicant also sought the police assistance for a smooth eviction process, citing the Defendant/Respondet's contempt of court orders and actions of wasting the land. 6. The application is supported by the Supporting Adavit of David Rakoi Ole Kuronoi sworn on 1st July 2025. In his Adavit, the Plainti/Applicant deponed that despite the Defendant/Respondent being aware of the Judgment delivered on 22nd March 2023, he never led any appeal, review, or application to set aside the judgment. 7. The Plainti/Applicant also stated that despite being aware of the court's Judgment, the Defendant/ Respondent has refused or neglected to comply with its terms and remains in occupation of the suit land. Following the Defendant/Respondent's failure to vacate the suit land within the 90-day period as directed by the court, an eviction notice was served upon the Defendant/Respondent, the Ocer Commanding Police Division, and the Deputy County Commissioner at Nairagie Enkare. 8. The Plainti/Applicant deponed that despite being served with the Certicates of costs and decree, the Defendant/Respondent has refused to vacate the suit land, depriving the Plainti/Applicant of its use and benet. 9. The Plainti/Applicant contended that it is in the interest of justice for the instant application to be allowed, and the Defendant/Respondent be evicted from the suit land. 10. Despite service, theDefendant/ Respondent did not le his response to the application herein, and/ or oppose it. 11. Application was canvassed by way of written submission. The Plainti/ Applicant led his written submissions dated 21st October 2025 and submitted that the application herein seeks execution of a Judgment delivered on 22nd March 2023, and decree of the court issued on the same date. The Plainti/ Applicant submitted that the said Judgment declared that land parcel No. Suswa Kitet Group Ranch 778, was legally allocated to the Plainti/Applicant herein. Further, the court ordered the Defendant/ Respondent to vacate the suit land within 90 days, failing of which an eviction order would be issued. 12. The Plainti/ applicant also submitted that despite being aware of the said Judgment, the Defendant/ Respondent has not led any appeal, nor sought a review, or applied for a stay of execution of the said Judgment of the court. 13. The Plainti/ Applicant further submitted that he issued an eviction notice dated 5th June 2023, as directed by the court under Section 152F of the Land Act, which was served upon the Defendant/ Respondent, the Ocer Commanding Police Division, and the Deputy Commissioner Nairage Enkare. Despite this, the Defendant has refused to vacate the land, depriving the plainti/ Applicant of the use and benet of his property and acting in contempt of court orders. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18481/eng@2025-12-19 2

page 2 of 5

14. Consequently, the Plainti/ Applicant sought the court’s intervention to execute its Judgment and decree, uphold its integrity, and ensure peaceful execution with Police assistance to avoid disturbances. The Applicant cited Section 22(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and the case of Michael Bartenge v Stephen Bartenge [2007] eklr, where the court held; “ By virtue of section 30 of the Civil Procedure Act; “a decree may be executed either by the court which passed or by the court to which it is sent for execution.” In eect, it is the court which executes decrees. The party, who holds a decree which is in his favour, only applies to the court to execute the decree. Therefore, if the order to stop the execution was issued in the nature of an injunction, it would eectively be addressed against the court. And, as it is the duty of the court to execute its decrees, an injunction to restrain it from so doing would be purporting to stop the court from performing one of its roles. That, in my considered view, would not be proper, even if the orders were clothed is such language as suggested that the orders were directed against the defendant. The only manner in which courts are stopped from taking steps to execute decrees is through orders for stay of execution. No such order has been sought herein.” 15. Ultimately, the Plainti/Applicant submitted that it is in the interest of justice that this court should exercise its discretion in favour of he applicant and grant the orders sought, so that the ends of justice can be met, and that the application herein is merited. 16. The court has considered the instant application and the orders sought, and it is evident that the suit herein is anchored under sections 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules, which sections of law, deal with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act, and the unfettered powers of the court to issue orders that are necessary for the end of justice to be met, 17. Further, Section 34 of the said act deals with questions to be determined by the court in execution of the decree. Order 22 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides; “ Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the court which passed the decree, or, if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another court, then to such court or to the proper ocer thereof; and applications under this rule shall be in accordance with Form No. 14 of Appendix A: Provided that, where judgment in default of appearance or defence has been entered against a defendant, no execution by payment, attachment or eviction shall issue unless not less than ten days’ notice of the entry of judgment has been given to him either at his address for service or served on him personally, and a copy of that notice shall be led with the rst application for execution.” 18. The Plainti /Applicant as a decree holder desires to execute the decree of the court, and he has consequently applied to this court to be allowed to execute the said decree. 19. The court has considered the court record, and it is evident that on 22nd March 2023, the court did enter a decree in favour of the Plainti/Applicant, wherein the court declared that land parcel No Suswa Kitet Group Ranch/778, was properly and legally allocated to the plainti, and therefore, it belongs to him. 20. Further, the court ordered the Defendant to vacate the said suit land within a period of 90 Days from the date of that Judgement, in default, eviction was to issue, and the provisions of sections 152E of the Land Act, was to be strictly followed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18481/eng@2025-12-19 3

page 3 of 5

1. The Plainti/Applicant has averred that the said judgment of the court has not been appealed against, and set aside, and or vacated. Therefore, it is valid judgment that is enforceable. See the case of M.A Koinange vs Joyce Ganchuku & 2 others [2015]eklr. 21. In this judgment of the court, the Defendant was supposed to give vacant possession of the suit land to the Plainti/Applicant, which he has not done. Since 90 Dys expired along time, then eviction order is supposed to issue. 22. The court directed that in carrying out eviction, the provisions of sections 152 E of the Land Act, was to be strictly adhered to. 23. Section 152E of the Land Act Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 2016, governs eviction from private land, which requires landowners to give unlawful occupiers a written notice of at least three months before eviction. Further the section species the terms for removing property, and serving it to the occupier, Deputy County Commissioner and OCPD. 24. This provision of law aims to formalize eviction processes, by preventing arbitrary removals and ensuring due process for unlawful occupants, thereby ensuring the occupants of the land have time to relocate. 25. The key requirements of Section 152E of Land Act are; A Written Notice, must be given in writing and the said notice must be in national and/or ocial language being Kiswahili or English. 26. Further, the duration must be at least three months before the intended eviction date. And the Content , must detail conditions for removing buildings, crops, or other belongings. Ultimately, there should be evidence of service. This Notice of eviction must be served on the unlawful occupier, the DCC, and the OCPD. 27. In his Supporting Adavit, the Plainti/Applicant attached an Adavit if service by Arasa Kinara, the process server, who served the notice of eviction to Morosua Ole Kondonyo, the Defendant herein, OCPD, Nairage Enkare, and Deputy County Commissioner Nairagie Enkare. Therefore, on service the Plainti/Applicant has fullled that condition 28. The Plainti/Applicant averred that the Defendant has not vacated the Suitland and thus this Application. Since there is a valid court order, the Defendant should Comply with it. 29. In the case of Gacheri v M’ikinyua; Kagwiria (Intended Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 201 of 2012) [2024] KEELC 13369 (KLR) (20 November 2024) (Ruling), t the court held; “ Section 152 (E) & (G) of the Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2016, clearly provides that the notice to vacate must be issued not less than three months before the intended date of eviction. Therefore, whether the respondents are occupying public land or private land, they are still entitled to three (3) months' notice”. 30. The Plainti/Applicant has conrmed that he did comply with the above provisions of section 152 E of the Land Act, and this court nds no reasons to decline to allow the orders sought in the Notice of Motion Application dated 1st July 2025. 31. In the case of Dzimba v Hassan [2025] KEELC 4283 (KLR); the Court stated as follows while issuing an eviction order sought vide an application: “ There is no contest that the applicant has a decree in his favour which was passed on 02.02.2016. There is no dispute that the said decree has never been overturned on appeal or https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18481/eng@2025-12-19 4

page 4 of 5

review. There is no contest that the respondent was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of the decree. It is also evident from the material on record that the respondent has no pending appeal either against the decree or the order holding him in contempt of court. The court is thus satised that the applicant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and that he is entitled to succeed in his application. The court is not satised that the respondent has demonstrated any legitimate reason to keep the applicant out of the suit property.” 32. It is trite that where a party seeks eviction orders, he or she has to adhere to the provisions of section 152 E and 152F of the Land Act. this court notes the Plainti/ Applicant has demonstrated that the Defendant/ Respondent was indeed served with eviction notices in accordance to the laid down legal provisions but he has declined to move from the suit premises. There is a valid decree of the court, which has not been vacated, and is enforceable. 33. Consequently, and in the circumstances, this court nds and holds that the instant application dated 1st March 2025 is merited and the same is allow terms of prayers Nos 2, 3 and 4. It is so ordered DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAROK THIS 19TH DECEMBER 2025. L. GACHERU JUDGE. Delivered online in the presence of N/A for Defendant/Respondent L. GACHERU JUDGE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18481/eng@2025-12-19 5

page 5 of 5