Tireito v Lagat & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 441 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 955 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to jail anyone for contempt but ordered surveyors to finally mark out 2.5 acres awarded to the applicant years ago.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondents are guilty of contempt as alleged
- 2.Whether the court should order the County Surveyor to affix beacons around the excised 2.5 acres in accordance with the judgment of the court
- 3.Which order should be made on costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents were guilty of contempt
No contempt established against either Respondent; the decree had substantially been implemented and no subsisting order bound the 3rd Respondent
The consent order recorded by Justice Omondi Tunya on 13th June, 2002 was interlocutory and lapsed on delivery of judgment on 26th February, 2014. The survey of 14th June, 2022 and the later three-option report were done pursuant to court directions without resistance from the 2nd Respondent. No order directed the 3rd Respondent to vacate the portion he purchased, so no contempt could be founded on his occupation.
Whether a fresh survey/beaconing should be ordered
The court ordered the County Surveyor to place beacons on the excised 2.5 acres in accordance with any of the three options in the 19th December, 2022 report, but refused a fresh survey
Two survey reports already on record were done in compliance with the judgment, which required that the 2.5 acres include the two houses. The Applicant's real grievance was the location relative to the road, which was not a term of the decree. Ordering another survey would reward the Applicant's resistance to lawful directions; only beaconing remained to complete execution.
Effect of Section 34(1) on execution questions
All questions relating to execution of the decree fall to the executing court, which had already made orders and directions on implementation
The court held that the orders and directions on implementation of the decree, including the fresh survey options, were properly made by the executing court pursuant to Section 34(1), which vests all execution-related questions between the parties in the court executing the decree rather than a separate suit.
Legal principles established
#- All questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree are determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit
- A party cannot be punished for contempt of a non-existent order
- Interlocutory consent orders lapse upon delivery of judgment in the suit
Court orders
#- 1.The County Surveyor to proceed to the ground and place beacons on the excised 2.5 acres in accordance with any of the three options identified in the survey report of 19th December, 2022 (erroneously dated 19th July, 2022)
- 2.The costs of the surveyor to be shared equally between the parties
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs on the application
- 4.All other prayers in the Notice of Motion dated 15th May, 2024 (committal to civil jail, police security, Deputy Registrar to sign documents) declined
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original supervisory/execution jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over its own decree; Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (as cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Committal of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to civil jail for contempt
No evidence of wilful disobedience; the consent order of 13th June, 2002 lapsed upon delivery of judgment on 26th February, 2014; the 3rd Respondent had no order directed against him
Order that the Officer Commanding Kapsoya Police Station provide security during implementation
The 2nd Respondent had not shown any resistance to the survey exercise
Order that the Deputy Registrar sign documents to effect the judgment
Not granted; the court found the existing survey reports complied with the judgment and only beaconing remained
Costs
The costs of the surveyor shall be shared equally. Each party shall bear their own costs on this application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is no way the 2nd Respondent could be accused of refusing to give 2.5 acres to the Applicant as the said 2.5 acres had not been identified.
He cannot therefore be found guilty of contempt for disobeying a non existent order seeking his vacation of the land.
The consent order by Justcie Omondi Tunya was not adopted by Justice Munyao. The orders arising from the consent were to last until hearing and determination of the suit.
I find tha the Applicant has partially succeeded in his application to the extent that the County Surveyor do proceed to the ground and place beacons on the excised 2.5 acres.
Save for the partial success of the Applicant’s application, the rest of the prayers in the Notice of Motion dated 15th May, 2024 are declined. The costs of the surveyor shall be shared equally. Each party shall bear their own costs on this application.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment date given inconsistently as 26th February, 2014 and 26th February, 2004
Survey report date given inconsistently: paragraph 15 states the report was dated 19th September, 2022 with actual date 19th December, 2022, while the disposition says it was erroneously dated 19th July, 2022
Execution provision attributed to the Civil Procedure Rules although the quoted text is Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Case number and party names are not stated anywhere in the judgment; parties are identified only by role
Consent order attributed to Justice Omondi Tunya is described inconsistently as a ruling dismissing a preliminary objection and immediately after as a recorded consent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tireito v Lagat & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 441 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 955 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/955/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.