Paul Otieno Mungla v Railway Housing Co-op. Society Limited [2015] KEELC 577 (KLR)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 577
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 577 (KLR)
- Decided
- 10 March 2015
The court ruled that the Plaintiff had not met the requirements for committal of the 2nd Defendant to civil jail as provided in Mutitika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR 229, as he had not demonstrated that the 2nd Defendant had deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court.
Facts
The Plaintiff applied for the sub-division and transfer of plot No. 13 of L.R No. 12715/141 to the Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant contended that he was ready and willing to comply with the Court order dated 25/10/2011.
Issues
- whether the 2nd Defendant can be committed to prison for non-satisfaction of the Court's decree
- whether the property of the 1st Defendant can be attached for the same reason
Reasoning
The court stated that the principles for arrest and committal to prison as a form of execution of a decree are that this is an acceptable and ordinary means of enforcing a decree, and that in proceedings to commit a debtor for a civil debt the preoccupation of the court is the execution of the decree which is sought to be executed.
Outcome
The Plaintiff's application was dismissed.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Order 22 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure Volume 1 by Richard Kuloba
Cases cited (1)
- Mutitika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR 229
Loading judgment…