Khamis & another v Mwarome (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E041 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 1100 (KLR)

on its merits and judgment delivered. On 17th June 2025, I observed that earlier on, an order had been issued that the OCS Kilifi Police Station be ordered to give police escort, security, protection, and assistance to John Kameta t/a Kameta Enterprises for execution of the orders of court in this matter. What the applicant is saying in the present application is that the station having jurisdiction is Ngerenya and not Kilifi, and the order should be directed to Ngerenya. At the moment, this court, being a civil court, is not concerned with nor seized with jurisdiction in respect of, matters raised by the respondent regarding alleged nefarious activities of the applicant, if any. Those matters can be addressed by the relevant law enforcement agencies or the proper court appropriately. What matters at this point is that this suit ended up in a judgment against the respondent in favour of the applicant and the law is that a judgment creditor is entitled to the fruits of his judgment. Furthermore, the response of the respondent assures this court that he is aware that he ought to vacate the premises to avoid eviction, this court having deferred proceedings on 23/10/2024 for his sake, that he be served. It is also necessary that litigation comes to an end. On 17th June 2025 this court stated as follows in a ruling to set aside judgment filed by the respondent: 4. 10. Gazette Notice number 6761 of 10th June 2022 is in the court file showing that the intention to have the land registered in the names of the plaintifis as ordered by this Court was gazetted on that date. From the following: a copy of the application for Land Control Board Consent, copy of the consent dated 9th February 2023 and a copy of the transfer of interest in land to Amri Hamis the first plaintifi, and a copy of the title deed in his name, which are all retained in the court file, it is apparent that the Deputy Registrar of this court pursued registration of the suit land in the plaintifi’s name to conclusion. 11. Having considered all the documentation inside the court file I find that the plaintifis served the defendant in the proper manner and the defendant acknowledged receipt of summons in this suit through an advocate while abroad, and no step was skipped in the prosecution of this case. Service upon the defendant abroad is allowed by the rules. In this court view all that matters in this case is that summons reached the defendant and that he acknowledged them. That was proper service. This court thus finds that the defendant received the summons and plaint. It was for the defendant to file appearance and defense through that advocate and not to indicate to the court that he would attend to suit at his own pleasure. If business of the court was conducted in that manner it is doubtful that any reasonable amount of litigation would ever be concluded in any year.” It now being time for execution of judgment and in the absence of any order of stay of execution, I find no ground upon which to deny the orders the applicant seeks in the application dated 7th October 2025, and I hereby grant the application in terms of prayer no 2 thereof. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. MWANGI NJOROGE JUDGE, ELC, MALINDI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1100/eng@2026-02-26 2

page 2 of 2