Karanja (Being administrator of the Estate of Tiras Karanja Gatha - Deceased) v (Deceased & another (Environment and Land Case 722 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4092 (KLR)

f. That costs of the application be provided for. 2. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the supporting afidavit of Veronica Rose Nyariara Karanja. She avers that pursuant to this Court’s judgement, the Plaintifi opted to have the suit land, Land Parcel No. Kiambaa/Kihara/467 valued by the Kiambu County Government Valuer, who valued it at kshs.6 million but the 1st Defendant rejected the valuation and hired a private valuer who valued the said parcel at Kshs.20 million. Further, that the 1st Defendant’s said valuation report was dismissed by this Court vide its Ruling dated 13th October 2022, where it acknowledged the Kiambu County Government’s valuation report. 3. She claims that on 14th March 2025, the 1st Defendant’s agents served a notification of sale and gave her fourty five (45) days to pay kshs.20 million or else the suit property will be sold. 4. She contends that about March 2024, she started ailing and since then, the estate of Tiras Karanja Ngatha has incurred exorbitant expenses in medical bills thus she is unable to make substantial payments towards settlement of the amount due and prays to be allowed to pay in installments. Response 5. In opposition, the 1st Defendant filed a replying afidavit in which he avers that in 2019, this Court issued an order directing the Plaintifi to compensate him for 0.5 acres he had gained from his parcel and or in the alternative sub-divide the suit parcel and cause a portion of 0.5 acres to be transferred to him. He disputes that there was a proposal for payment of compensation and contends that land appreciates in value, the market value of 0.5 acres cannot be the same as it was in 2019 when judgement was passed. He acknowledges that in 2022, the Plaintifi wrote to him through his advocates for a proposal of paying kshs.250, 000/= in installments, which he vehemently refused as he is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment in this matter which has been in court since the year 2012. 6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 7. The Plaintifi submits that under Order 21 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to control its process and ensure just execution of its Decree. She points out that the 1st Defendant’s actions reveal a clear intention to extract a benefit far in excess of what has been lawfully adjudged, thereby unjustly enriching himself by purporting to sell the suit property based on an infiated valuation of Kshs.20 million, contrary to this Court’s Ruling of 13th October 2022. 8. She urges the Court to intervene, not only to uphold the integrity of its prior orders, but also to ensure that execution remains confined strictly to the decretal sum of kshs.6 million. 9. She contends that her conduct in the matter has been consistent, transparent and in good faith, as she has sustained progressive efiort to settle the decretal sum, while the 1st Defendant has always refused to engage and insists on 0.5 acres or Kshs.20 million. She contends that her finances have since improved and ofiers to pay kshs.400,000/= immediately , followed by full settlement in fourteen (14) days. 10. To buttress her averments, the Plaintifi relied on the decisions of: Shah v Haria & another [2025] KEHC 15213(KLR) and Rajabali Alidina v Rentulla Alidina [1961] EA 565. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4092/eng@2026-07-01 2

page 2 of 3

Analysis and Determination 11. I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective afidavits and rivalling submissions and the only issue for determination is whether the Plaintifi is entitled to leave to settle the decretal sum by instalments and if the Notification of Sale issued by the 1st Defendant’s auctioneers demanding payment of Kshs. 20,000,000/= is lawful. 12. The Plaintifi sought leave to settle the decretal sum of Kshs. 6,000,000/= by instalments of Kshs. 100,000/=. However, in her written submissions, she departs from the prayer and submits that she is now willing to pay Kshs. 400,000/= immediately and settle the balance within fourteen (14) days. 13. The Court record indicates that on 15th December 2025 in open court, the Counsel on record for the Plaintifi sought leave to deposit the entire decretal sum in final satisfaction of the Decree of Kshs.6 million. It is therefore apparent that the Plaintifi has abandoned the prayer for paying in instalments. 14. The Plaintifi contends that this Court settled the issue of valuation in its Ruling dated 13th October 2022 by accepting the valuation prepared by the Kiambu County Government valuing the 0.5 acre portion in dispute at Kshs. 6,000,000/= and rejecting the valuation procured by the 1st Defendant placing its value at Kshs. 20,000,000/=. She therefore argues that the Notification of Sale issued by the 1st Defendant’s auctioneers demanding payment of Kshs. 20,000,000/= is unlawful as it is inconsistent with the judgment and subsequent orders of this Court. 15. On its part, the 1st Defendant, argues that land appreciates in value and that he is entitled to the current market value of the property rather than the valuation adopted in 2022. He also suggests that 0.5 acres should be excised from the Plaintifi’s parcel in the alternative. 16. From perusal of the Ruling of the 13th October, 2022, I note the Court allowed the adoption of the Valuation Report by the Kiambu County Government in respect to Kiambaa/ Kihara/467. Further, on perusal of a Ruling delivered 4th June, 2014, which settled this matter, the Plaintifi was supposed to subdivide Kiambaa/ Kihara/ 467 and cause a portion of 0.5 acres to be transferred to the 1st Defendant or in the alternative pay for the value of the said portion. However, the Plaintifi is yet to adhere to the terms of the Court Order. 17. I note in the instant application the Plaintifi sought to pay a certain amount by instalment but made a difierent proposal in her submissions, hence the Court is not clear on what she seeks to pay. It is my considered view that the Plaintifi is not candid and has delayed in complying with the Orders of this Court and she now seeks to block the 1st Defendant from enjoying the fruits of the judgement. 18. In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Kanja holding brief for Juma for Plaintifis Wanganga for Respondent Court Assistant: Vena https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4092/eng@2026-07-01 3

page 3 of 3