'
1. On 25th February 2025, the parties to this appeal withdrew the appeal filed before this court.
2. Regarding the costs of this appeal, this court ordered the appellant to voluntarily vacate the suit property within 45 days failing which the 1st respondent would be entitled to costs of the application dated 8th August 2024, which parties had by consent withdrawn, and the appeal.
3. It appears that the appellant did not vacate the suit property within the time given by the court.
4. Arising from the appellant’s failure to vacate the suit property within the time given by the court, the 1st respondent filed the notice of motion application dated 12th June 2025 praying that the appellant be cited and held to be in contempt of the order or direction of the court issued on 25th February 2025 requiring him to voluntarily vacate the suit property within 45 days.
5. Terming the appellant’s refusal to comply with the order or directive of the court given on 25th February 2025 willful disobedience and contempt of the authority of the court, the 1st respondent urges the court to cite the appellant for contempt of the court and punish him by committing him to civil jail for a term not exceeding 6 months or such period as the court may deem just and fit.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant, Mokicho Chepkurui Cheptoo, in which the grounds on the face of the application are reiterated. Annexed to the supporting affidavit and marked MCC I is a copy of the court order said to have been disobeyed.
7. The appellant filed a response to the application vide the replying affidavit sworn on 7th July 2025, in which he deposes that the application is filed in a none existent appeal, is strange in law, without merit and ought to be dismissed with costs; that they withdrew the appeal by consent on 25th February 2025 and that when the respondent sought for costs of the appeal, the court directed him to vacate the suit premises within 45 days failing which he would be required to pay costs of the appeal.
8. Contending that he is not in contravention of the order of the court, the appellant deposes that if the 1st respondent/ applicant thinks that he has contravened the order of the court, he should pursue the procedure for his eviction and taxation for costs instead of filing an application for contempt; that the 1st respondent /applicant has filed an application for his eviction which application is pending before the lower court and that the application is misplaced and without merits.
9. I have read and considered the circumstances surrounding the filing of the instant application by the 1st respondent/applicant. Whilst it is true that this court did direct the respondent to voluntarily vacate the suit property, the consequences of failure to vacate the suit property within the time ordered by the court were clearly stated as attachment of the 1st respondent liability to costs.
10. I agree with the appellant that this court did not issue any order to the effect that failure to vacate the suit property within the time ordered by the court would attract consequences other than the accruing of the respondent’s liability to pay costs in respect of the application parties withdrew and the appeal.
11. Upon withdrawal of the appeal by the parties, it was the responsibility of the 1st respondent to execute the decree issued to him by the lower court and if the order for costs issued by this court has crystallized, tax it and execute it accordingly.
12. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application by the 1st respondent/applicant lacks in merits. Consequently, I dismiss it with costs to the appellant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Iten this 22nd day of October 2025.
Ruling read virtually in the presence of:
Mr. Kibichii holding brief for Ms. Kipsii for the appellant
Mr. Wafula for the 1st respondent/applicant
Court Asst.: Brian
'
1. On 25th February 2025, the parties to this appeal withdrew the appeal filed before this court.
2. Regarding the costs of this appeal, this court ordered the appellant to voluntarily vacate the suit property within 45 days failing which the 1st respondent would be entitled to costs of the application dated 8th August 2024, which parties had by consent withdrawn, and the appeal.
3. It appears that the appellant did not vacate the suit property within the time given by the court.
4. Arising from the appellant’s failure to vacate the suit property within the time given by the court, the 1st respondent filed the notice of motion application dated 12th June 2025 praying that the appellant be cited and held to be in contempt of the order or direction of the court issued on 25th February 2025 requiring him to voluntarily vacate the suit property within 45 days.
5. Terming the appellant’s refusal to comply with the order or directive of the court given on 25th February 2025 willful disobedience and contempt of the authority of the court, the 1st respondent urges the court to cite the appellant for contempt of the court and punish him by committing him to civil jail for a term not exceeding 6 months or such period as the court may deem just and fit.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant, Mokicho Chepkurui Cheptoo, in which the grounds on the face of the application are reiterated. Annexed to the supporting affidavit and marked MCC I is a copy of the court order said to have been disobeyed.
7. The appellant filed a response to the application vide the replying affidavit sworn on 7th July 2025, in which he deposes that the application is filed in a none existent appeal, is strange in law, without merit and ought to be dismissed with costs; that they withdrew the appeal by consent on 25th February 2025 and that when the respondent sought for costs of the appeal, the court directed him to vacate the suit premises within 45 days failing which he would be required to pay costs of the appeal.
8. Contending that he is not in contravention of the order of the court, the appellant deposes that if the 1st respondent/ applicant thinks that he has contravened the order of the court, he should pursue the procedure for his eviction and taxation for costs instead of filing an application for contempt; that the 1st respondent /applicant has filed an application for his eviction which application is pending before the lower court and that the application is misplaced and without merits.
9. I have read and considered the circumstances surrounding the filing of the instant application by the 1st respondent/applicant. Whilst it is true that this court did direct the respondent to voluntarily vacate the suit property, the consequences of failure to vacate the suit property within the time ordered by the court were clearly stated as attachment of the 1st respondent liability to costs.
10. I agree with the appellant that this court did not issue any order to the effect that failure to vacate the suit property within the time ordered by the court would attract consequences other than the accruing of the respondent’s liability to pay costs in respect of the application parties withdrew and the appeal.
11. Upon withdrawal of the appeal by the parties, it was the responsibility of the 1st respondent to execute the decree issued to him by the lower court and if the order for costs issued by this court has crystallized, tax it and execute it accordingly.
12. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application by the 1st respondent/applicant lacks in merits. Consequently, I dismiss it with costs to the appellant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Iten this 22nd day of October 2025.
Ruling read virtually in the presence of:
Mr. Kibichii holding brief for Ms. Kipsii for the appellant
Mr. Wafula for the 1st respondent/applicant
Court Asst.: Brian
'