The Republic of Kenya v David Kiprono Arap Boit & 1 other

THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO ELC NO. 37 OF 2006 (O.S) RECHO CHEMUTAI CHERUTO...........................PLAINTIFF VERSUS DAVID KIPRONO ARAP BOIT..............................DEFENDANT RULING 1. The applications before me is one dated the 28 th April 2019 filed pursuant to the provisions of Order 51 Rule 1 & 3, Order 22 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all enabling provisions of the law where the Applicant/Plaintiff herein seeks for an order of eviction to have the Defendant/Respondent to move out of the land parcel LR No. Kericho/Nyamanga/131 (the suit land) and further orders to have the OCS Roret police post to render assistance. 2. The second application is dated the 2 nd March 2020 by Defendant herein brought under the provisions of Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 1A(2),1B,3A & 80 of the Civil Procedure Act where the Defendant seeks that the court reviews and/or sets aside its ruling and orders issued on the 28th November 2019. 3. Directions were taken on the 1 st February 2021 to have both applications disposed of by way of written submissions wherein as at the time I write this ruling, only the Plaintiff has complied with the court’s directions. 4. I have considered both the Applications herein, the submissions thereto and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether the Applicants herein are entitled to the orders sought in their respective applications. 5. The Plaintiff’s application dated the 28 th April 2019 is based on the fact that via a judgment delivered on the 27th of February, 2018 and a subsequent order of the court dated the 16th May 2018, the court had decreed that she had acquired 1.6 hectares of the suit land by adverse possession and that the Respondent/Defendant should transfer the same to her within 30 days of the judgment, in default the Executive Officer of the court be authorized to sign the transfer documents on behalf of the Defendant to the Plaintiff . 6. Subsequently the Plaintiff acquired title to the suit land on the 15 th March 2019 but the Defendant still remains in occupation of the same to the Plaintiff’s detriment and proprietary right thereby occasioning him to suffer loss and damage. 7. Pursuant to the filing of the said application the Defendant herein filed his application dated 15 th May 2019 in which he sought to stay the execution, set aside and/or review the judgment delivered on 27 th February 2019. By consent the application dated 28 th April 2019 was kept in abeyance pending the outcome of the one dated 15th May 2019. 8. The Ruling on application dated 15th May 2019 was subsequently delivered on the 28 th November 2019 dismissing the Defendant’s application with costs to the Plaintiff. 9. I find that there is already judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s application seeking to stay the order of execution of the judgment having been dismissed by the court’s ruling of 28 th November 2019 and if the Defendant has refused to vacate the suit land as per the terms of the judgment, then there is no other option to have the Plaintiff enjoy the fruits of her judgment other than having the Defendant forcefully evicted. 10. On the second Application dated the 2 nd March 2020 where the Defendant seeks that the court reviews and/or sets aside its ruling and orders issued on the 28th November 2019. 11. Order 45 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is very clear and bars subsequent applications to review an order made on an application for a review. The same provides as follows:

page 1 of 2