Sugut v Koech (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3660 (KLR)

2. The application is premised upon the applicant’s afidavit of twenty one paragraphs together with the annexed documents inclusive of copies of the judgment and decree delivered on 6th February 2025 herein and sixteen grounds, inter alia; a. That, this honourable court delivered its Judgment in this matter on 6th February 2025 in the terms shown in the Judgment annexed to the afidavit in support of the application filed herewith. b. That, this honourable court vide the judgment ordered inter alia the County Surveyor Nandi County to subdivide Nandi/Chepterit/794 (hereafter referred to as the suit property) and hive out 2.08 acres thereof in occupation by the Plaintifi (now decree holder) and upon the said subdivision the County land Registrar Nandi County to register him as the proprietor of the 2.08 acres within 90 days from the date of the judgment aforesaid. c. That, this honourable court vide the said judgment also ordered the defendant (now judgment debtor) to execute all the necessary documents so as to give efiect to the subdivision and the registration of the plaintifi (now decree holder) as the owner of 2.08 acres in Nandi/Chepterit/794 within 45 days from the date of the said Judgment including surrendering of the original title for these purposes, in default, the Deputy Registrar of this court to execute the said documents within 60 days of date thereof. d. That, the decree holder/applicant has since commenced the implementation of the decree save that the same cannot be fully undertaken without the necessary approvals from the Land Control Board on an intended application for consent to transfer and the instrumentality of the transfer which have to be endorsed by the Deputy Registrar as the respondent has since defaulted in signing them and has fallen outside the timelines prescribed by the court. 3. The respondent was duly served with the application as disclosed in the afidavit of service sworn on 8th June 2026. However, he opted not to respond to it thus, there is a presumption that he was duly served as I subscribe to the decision in the case of Shadrack Arap Baiywo vs Bodi Bach (1987) eKLR. 4. Mr. Victor Kiprono learned counsel for the applicant urged the court to allow the application as the same was duly served on the respondent. 5. This court is guided by, inter alia, articles 48, 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) in respect of the application. 6. In the premises, I find the application unopposed, cogent and merited. 7. A fortiori, the application dated 25th May 2026 is hereby allowed in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought therein as set out at paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove with no orders as to costs being guided by the decision in the case of Rai & others vs Rai & others (2014) eKLR. 8. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3660/eng@2026-06-11 2

page 2 of 3

In the presence of; Mr. V. Kiprono learned counsel for the Applicant/Decree Holder. Mr. Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3660/eng@2026-06-11 3

page 3 of 3