I. Introduction
1. This Honourable Court was called upon to determine two ( 2 ) Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 by Jeremiah’s Creek Limited , the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. The 2 nd application was the one dated 18 th February, 2026 by Tabitha Ndungu , the 1 st Defendant. This Application was brought under the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 38 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, together with all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. Upon service of the 1 st application, the Defendant/Respondent, filed responses vide a 16 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit dated 12 th march, 2026. Likewise, while opposing the 2 nd application, the Plaintiff herein filed their replies vide a Replying Affidavit dated………………..Thus, the Honourable Court has dealt with the two applications simultaneously but distinctly and separately and reserved an omnibus Ruling herein.
II. The Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 by the Plaintiff/Applicant
3. The Plaintiff/Applicant sought for the following orders: -
a) Spent.
b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant post-judgment.
c) That this Honorable Court be pleased to cite the Defendant/Respondent for contempt of court for willfully disobeying and deliberately disobeying the Judgment of this Honorable Court dated 4 th August, 2025 issued by Honorable Lady Justice A.E. Dena.
d) That this Honorable Court be pleased to commit the Defendant/Respondent to civil jail for a period of Six (6) Months or impose such other sanctions as it deems fit in the circumstances.
e) That this Honorable Court be pleased to direct the Officer Commanding Station (OCS),Diani Police Station and/or such other police officers as may be necessary to provide security and maintain peace and order during the execution of the eviction, and to prevent any breach of the peace, obstruction, intimidation or interference with the Court Bailiff/Auctioneer and/or the Applicant/Decree Holder.
f) That the costs of this application be provided for.
4. The application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the 14 Paragraphed annexed supporting affidavit of DAVID NEEDHAM, the director of the Plaintiff/ Applicant averred as follows that:-
i. He was well versed with the matters pertinent to the suit and hence competent to swear the Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
ii. Pursuant to the Judgment dated and delivered on 4 th August, 2025 (“the Judgment”), this Honourable Court made the following determination:
(a) The eviction of the Defendant/Respondent from Plot No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 (Herein after referred to as “the Suit Property”) and vacant possession thereof was to be effected within 120 days from the date of delivery of the Judgment.
(b) The eviction was to be peaceful, dignified and carried out in a humane manner should the Defendant/Respondent fail to vacate at the expiry of 120 days.
iii. The Defendant/Respondent and/or her advocates were aware of the Judgment that was delivered and the consequential Decree dated 9 th December, 2025 (“the Decree”) issued thereafter. Annexed hereto and marked as “DN - 1” was a copy of the Judgment and the Decree dated 4 th August, 2025.
iv. Despite being aware of the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the Defendant/Respondent had willfully failed and/or refused to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court.
v. The Plaintiff/Applicant had unsuccessfully made several attempts to get the Defendant out of the suit property in a humane and dignified manner, but the Defendant/Respondent continued to show contempt to the orders of this Honourable Court as laid out in the Judgment.
vi. It had been over 120 days since the Judgment was delivered but the Defendant/Respondent had willfully refused to vacate the suit property to give effect to the orders of this Honourable Court.
vii. As recent as 10 th February, 2026, the Plaintiff/Applicant had caused the Judgment and Decree to be affixed in a conspicuous place on the suit property as a reminder to the Defendant/Respondent, but she continued to be in contempt of the orders. Annexed hereto and marked as “DN - 2” was a photograph of the Judgment and Decree posted on the gate to the entry of the Suit Property.
viii. The actions of the Defendant/Respondent undermined the authority of this Honourable Court and risked rendering its orders nugatory unless effective steps were undertaken to enforce compliance.
ix. The orders of this Honourable Court were not issued in vain, the Plaintiff/Applicant had sought the intervention of this Honourable Court to assist in the compliance of the Judgment and the Decree.
x. The continued willful disobedience of the Judgment by the Defendant/Respondent continued to deprive the Plaintiff of its constitutionally guaranteed right to the protection of its property while at the same time showing contempt to this Honourable Court of its validly issued court orders.
xi. To ensure that the eviction was carried out in the manner stated in the Judgment, the Plaintiff/Applicant sought for a directive to be given to the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Diani Police Station and/or such other police officers as might have been necessary to provide security and maintain peace and order during the execution of the eviction, and to prevent any breach of the peace, obstruction, intimidation or interference with the Court Bailiff/Auctioneer and/or the Applicant/Decree Holder.
xii. The orders sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant were granted, the Defendant/Respondent stood to deprive the Plaintiff/Applicant of its constitutionally guaranteed right to the protection of its property.
xiii. The facts deponed to herein were true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information, sources whereof had been disclosed, and matters deponed to on belief, the grounds whereupon had been given for such belief.
III. The Grounds of opposition by the Defendant/Respondent
5. The Defendant/Respondent opposed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 through a grounds of opposition dated 12 th March, 2026 on the following grounds:-
a. The Application was bad in law, grossly misplaced, lacking in merits and otherwise an abuse of the due process of the Court.
b. The Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in this matter as the Advocates on record the Plaintiff is ABK Advocates LLP, and they had not been removed from so acting. In the premises, said law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in this matter, as purported or at all
c. The Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026 was omnibus and thus incapable of being heard and/or prosecuted as it was or at all, and ought to be struck out.
d. The Orders sought Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026 could not be granted as sought or at all.
e. The Application herein had no basis and thus ought to be forthwith dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
IV. The responses by the 1 st Defendant to the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026
6. Additionally, the 1 st Defendant responded to the Notice of Motion application through a 16 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by TABITHA NDUNGU on 12 th March, 2026 wherein the Affiant deponed as follows that:-
i. She was the 1 st Defendant therein and of sound mind, well versed with the issues in that matter, and thus she was competent to swear that Affidavit.
ii. The Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in that matter as the Advocates on record for the Plaintiff were ABK Advocates LLP, and they had not been removed from acting.
iii. Notwithstanding the above, though that Honourable Court had delivered Judgment on the 4 th August, 2025, she had been aggrieved by the entire Judgment, consequent to which she filed an Appeal by lodging the Notice of Appeal dated the 8 th August, 2025, which had been duly paid for on the 10 th August, 2025 as evidenced by Receipt No. RB-0122794 in the CTS.
iv. Since the said Appeal was to the Court of Appeal, she had been informed by her Advocate, Mr. R. M. Tindika, and she verily believed the said information to be true, that having filed the Notice of Appeal, there was consequently an Appeal lodged with and pending before the Court of Appeal in pursuance of the mandatory provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provided:-
“For the purposes of this rule an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to have been filed when under the Rules of that Court notice of appeal has been given.”
v. The 1 st Defendant was a total stranger to the allegations that David Needham or anyone on behalf of the Plaintiff had made attempts to get out of the suit property in any humane or dignified manner, other than the illegal disconnection of her electric power and unlawful posting of Notice by the said David Needham at the gate of the suit property.
vi. She had claim to the suit property by the fact that the same had been bought by her late Husband, Charles Kamau (Deceased), through a Company, Escafeld Holdings Limited, which he had incorporated with Maureen Millet, and which had proceeded to purchase the suit property from the Interested Party, Andrew Thiaine Imwati. Consequent to the said purchase, the original Title Deed to the suit property, which was to be transferred to the said Company after paying the full purchase price thereof, had been obtained.
vii. She reiterated, as she had averred in her Affidavit in support of the Application for injunction and stay of execution of the Judgment therein, that no transaction had taken place between the Plaintiff and the original owner of the suit property, Andrew Thiaine Imwati, and specifically, the Plaintiff had not paid a single cent for the purchase of the property. This was a serious triable issue that was to be addressed by the Court of Appeal in the said pending Appeal.
viii. Further, in order to obtain the illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent title deed for the suit property, the Plaintiff had presented before the Land Registrar, Kwale, documents that were not capable of passing any interest thereof, had never been executed, and therefore the transfer had been grossly fraudulent. This position had been supported by the Land Registrar who testified on behalf of the 2 nd Defendant; this was another very serious issue that was to be determined by the Court of Appeal.
ix. The Plaintiff’s Director, David Needham, was a foreigner, being a citizen of Great Britain, and thus armed with a Title Deed which had been illegally, unlawfully, wrongfully, and fraudulently obtained. If the suit property had been released to him, as wrongfully sought in the Application at hand, the Plaintiff would have proceeded to sell, dispose of, or part with ownership of the suit property in an endeavour to frustrate any Appeal to the Court of Appeal. This explained why the Director aforesaid had used all illegal means to wrestle the property from her hands, which would have had the obvious effect of rendering the Appeal nugatory.
x. There had been need for the suit property to be preserved, and the best way to do so had been to issue injunctive orders as well as an order of stay of execution of the Decree emanating from the Judgment of that Honourable Court against the Plaintiff as per the Notice of Motion Application dated the 18 th February, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the said Appeal.
xi. The lodging of the Record of Appeal to the Court of Appeal had been awaiting the certified copies of Proceedings and Judgment, which that Honourable Court had yet to avail, and hence the delay in filing the Record of Appeal could not be blamed on her.
xii. The 1 st Defendant’s Application for stay of execution of the Decree as well as injunction pending Appeal had clearly been made within the confines of the law, not only under the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 but also under other provisions of the law as cited in her Application dated the 18 th February, 2026, and that the said Application had not been a reaction to the Plaintiff’s Application as alleged.
xiii. From the Plaintiff’s illegal, unlawful, wrongful, and fraudulent actions of obtaining the Title Deed to the suit property, despite the fact that the original Title Deed existed and had never been cancelled, the Plaintiff had, by the Application at hand, been geared towards illegally, unlawfully, and wrongfully removing and/or evicting her from the property so that he might defeat her and the Estate of her Husband’s right, interest, and claim to the suit property, which would have had the consequence of occasioning them irredeemable and irreparable loss and damage.
xiv. She had strenuously opposed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026, and she prayed that the same be dismissed with costs to her.
xv. All what she had stated therein above was true to the best of her knowledge and belief, save for information sources whereof she had been disclosed and which she verily believed to be true.
V. The Notice of Motion Application dated 18 th February, 2026 by the Defendant
7. The Notice of Motion application by the Defendant was brought pursuant to the following provisions - Articles 40, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Order 42 Rule 6 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of the Civil procedure Rules, Section 19 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
The Defendant sought for the following orders:-
a) Spent.
b) That this Honourable Court does issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff, by itself, its Director (s), agents, assignees, employees, servants, nominees or any one claiming through or under it from entering into, selling or offering to sell, disposing off, charging, mortgaging, sub – dividing, pleading, entering into, remaining in or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s ownership and quiet possession and enjoyment of all that property known as Plot/Title Number Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 together with the buildings and/or improvements, trees, vegetation and/or crops thereon pending the hearing and determination of this application.
c) That this Honourable Court does issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff, by itself, its Director (s), agents, assignees, employees, servants, nominees or any one claiming through or under it from entering into, selling or offering to sell, disposing off, charging, mortgaging, sub – dividing, pleading, entering into, remaining in or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s ownership and quiet possession and enjoyment of all that property known as Plot/Title Number Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 together with the buildings and/or improvements, trees, vegetation and/or crops thereon pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025.
d) That this Honourable Court to make an Order of Stay of Execution of the Decree arising from the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025 pending the inter - parte hearing of this Application.
e) That this Honourable Court to make an Order of Stay of Execution of the Decree arising from the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025 pending the lodging, hearing and determination of the intended Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Judgement and Decree of this Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025.
f) That costs of this application be borne by the Plaintiff.
8. The application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the 29 Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit by TABITHA NDUNGU sworn and dated on 18 th February, 2026 tother with seven ( 7 ) annextures marked as “TN”. She averred as follows that:-
VI. The responses to the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 by the Plaintiff
9. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 through a 21 paragraphed replying affidavit sworn by DAVID NEEDHAM on 11 th March, 2026 wherein he responded as follows:
a. He was the director of the Plaintiff/Respondent with full authority and knowledge of the facts pertaining to that suit; hence competent to swear that affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
b. The had read and understood the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 and the Supporting Affidavit of Tabitha Ndungu of even date filed by the 1st Defendant/Applicant under a Certificate of Urgency and wished to respond to the same as hereunder.
c. In response to Paragraphs 2 – 10 of the Supporting Affidavit, he had been advised by the Plaintiff/Respondent’s advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that all the facts deponed to by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant were Res - Judicata after the same had been settled in the judgment of that Honourable Court dated 4 th August, 2025.
d. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s act of trying to relitigate the issues through the back door was akin to asking that Honourable Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction where it had already been rendered functus officio.
e. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff/Respondent had noticed that there was a Notice of Appeal filed on 10 th August, 2025, but the same referred to a decision of a different trial judge delivered on a different date.
f. Further and without prejudice to the foregoing, it therefore remained unclear whether the Notice of Appeal had been intended for that particular suit or for a different matter. However, it should not have been the duty of that Honourable Court to decode the intentions of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant.
g. In the alternative, if it had been a genuine mistake made by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant in the drafting process of the Notice of Appeal, it therefore behooved the 1 st Defendant/Applicant, over 194 days, to file an Amended Notice of Appeal without even seeking leave of that Honourable Court to enlarge time to have the same admitted on record to regularize the process.
h. In response to Paragraphs 12 – 13 of the Supporting Affidavit, the 1 st Defendant/Applicant ought to have known that a court of law did not issue orders in vain and hence the same had to be complied with unless a stay order had been issued pending an appeal process.
i. Further and without prejudice to the foregoing, the only thing that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had demonstrated was the effort made in obtaining certified proceedings required for filing a Record of Appeal, but no explanation as to why she had and continued to openly defy the orders made in the Judgment.
j. In further support of Paragraphs 8 – 9 hereinabove, the averments made by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant were merely sideshows which did not address the germane issue of why she had failed to obey lawful court orders in existence as per the Judgment.
k. In response to paragraphs 16 – 20, the Plaintiff/Respondent had no powers or authority to direct Kenya Power (KP) on the disconnection of a lawful connection. And if the same had been done by KP, the Plaintiff believed that proper protocols had to be followed to ensure KP did not abuse its authority.
l. Further and in support of paragraph 15 hereinabove, the Plaintiff/Respondent could not therefore be blamed for any misfortunes that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had faced as a result of a disconnection done by KP exercising its lawful authority.
m. In response to paragraph 21 of the Supporting Affidavit, indeed it was true that he had posted the judgment on the main door of the suit property. No illegal act had been performed, as it had been done to bring awareness to the 1 st Defendant/Applicant on the existing orders which ought to have been complied with.
n. In response to paragraphs 23 – 25 of the Supporting Affidavit, it was crystal clear that the Notice of Motion application filed by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had been simply an afterthought and a knee-jerk reaction to the Plaintiff/Respondent’s application made via Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026, which had sought to evict the Defendant/Applicant from the suit property known as Plot No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 pursuant to the Decree dated 4 th August, 2025.
o. He had been advised by his advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that the maxims of equity provided that “equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent,” and hence the present application under the Notice of Motion application was one such instance.
p. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant had failed to seek stay orders early to justify her continued stay in the suit property despite the existing Judgment and Decree. Instead, she had chosen the path of contempt of court orders knowing full well that it had adverse consequences.
q. He had further been advised by his advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that one could not approach that Honourable Court with unclean hands the way the Defendant/Applicant had.
r. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant could not therefore approach that Honourable Court, albeit late in the day, seeking temporary relief while at the same time showing contempt to the orders of that Honourable Court.
s. Contrary to the averments of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant in Paragraph 26 of the Supporting Affidavit, her approach to that Honourable Court seeking stay orders had been merely an afterthought. Otherwise, there was no justifiable explanation as to why she had waited well over the 120 days, being the grace period under the Judgment and Decree, before filing the Notice of Motion application seeking stay orders.
t. In response to Paragraphs 27 – 28 of the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff reiterated the contents of Paragraphs 15 – 18 hereinabove and further stated that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had not been deserving of the orders she had sought. Courts of law did not issue orders in vain, and hence the 1 st Defendant/Applicant could not simply seek to be granted orders against the Plaintiff/Respondent and expect them to be obeyed when she was in actual contempt of existing court orders.
u. Whatever had been deponed therein was true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information, sources whereof had been disclosed, and matters deponed to on belief, the grounds whereupon had been given.
VII. Submissions
10. On 12 th March, 2026 while all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the two ( 2 ) Notice of Motion applications dated 16 th and 18 th February, 2026 be disposed of by way of written submissions and all the parties complied. Pursuant to that all the parties fully obliged and a ruling date was reserved on 18 th June, 2026 by the Honourable Court. Eventually, it was delivered on 30 th July, 2026 accordingly.
A. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff in support of the Notice of Motion Application dated 16 th February, 2026
11. The Plaintiff through the law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP, filed their written submissions dated 1 st May, 2026. Mr. Githiomi Advocate submitted these submissions had been made on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein in support of the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant under Certificate of Urgency and supported by an affidavit of even date sworn by DAVID NEEDHAM seeking the above orders.
12. In response, the Defendant/Respondent filed her Grounds of Opposition dated 12 th March, 2026 and the Replying Affidavit of even date sworn by TABITHA NDUNGU opposing the Notice of Motion. Through these submissions, they would seek to persuade this Honorable Court on why the Notice of Motion was merited and therefore, should be allowed.
13. On the brief facts, the Learned Counsel submitted that on 4 th August, 2025, this Honorable Court delivered its judgment, wherein it ordered the eviction of the Defendant/Respondent from the land known as Title No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 and directed that the Defendant/Respondent vacate the suit property within 120 days from the date of the judgment. The Court further directed that in the event the Defendant/Respondent failed to vacate within the stipulated period, eviction would ensue and that such eviction be carried out in a peaceful, humane and dignified manner. Despite being aware of the Judgment and the Decree subsequently issued on 9 th December, 2025, the Defendant/Respondent has willfully failed and/or refused to comply with the orders of this Honorable Court.
14. More than 120 days had since elapsed, yet the Defendant/Respondent continues to unlawfully remain on the Suit Property in blatant disobedience of the orders of this Court. The Plaintiff/Applicant had made several attempts to persuade the Defendant/Respondent to vacate the Suit Property voluntarily and in a dignified manner, but those efforts had been unsuccessful. The Defendant/Respondent’s continued occupation of the Suit Property therefore constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful court order and amounted to a direct affront to the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court. In the circumstances, it was therefore necessary for this Court to intervene to enforce compliance with its orders and to give effect to the judgment delivered on 4 th August, 2025.
15. The Learned Counsel relied on the following issues for determination:-
(a) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 was competent and properly before this Honorable Court?
(b) Whether the law firm of Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP should be granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant post - Judgment?
(c) Whether the Defendant/Respondent is in contempt of court?
(d) Whether the Court should grant orders committing the Defendant/Respondent to civil jail?
(e) Whether the Court should direct the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Diani Police Station to provide security during the execution of the eviction
16. On whether the Notice of Motion dated 16 th February, 2026 was Competent and Properly before this Honorable Court. The Learned Counsel opined that the 1 st Defendant/Respondent had challenged the Notice of Motion application her Grounds of Opposition by contending, inter alia, that it was “omnibus” and therefore incompetent and incapable of being sustained. The Eldoret Court of Appeal defined the meaning of “omnibus” in the case of “Waweru & 2 Others – Versus - Maina [2026] eKLR” as:
“Pleadings that seek multiple, often contradictory or vague reliefs, or implead numerous parties without specific allegations against each…which bundle numerous, often unrelated requests or broad complaints without specific, substantiated facts…”
17. From the foregoing definition, it was evident that what renders an application “omnibus” in the objectionable sense was not the mere fact that it contains multiple prayers, but rather where such prayers are vague, contradictory, unrelated, or incapable of being properly adjudicated due to lack of factual anchoring or coherence. The decisive question therefore was whether the Notice of Motion application contained vague, unrelated, or contradictory reliefs of the kind contemplated in the above definition, or whether the prayers therein arise from a coherent factual foundation and pursue a singular objective capable of determination by this Honorable Court.
18. The Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, all the reliefs sought in the application arise from a single, clear, and undisputed factual matrix namely, the Defendant/Respondent’s continued failure and refusal to comply with the Judgment and Decree of this Honorable Court delivered on 4 th August, 2025. The application is therefore anchored on one central cause of action enforcement of a lawful court judgment. Properly analyzed, the prayers are neither contradictory nor unrelated. The prayer for leave to come on record post - Judgment was procedural and intended to regularize representation in compliance with the provision of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The prayers seeking a finding of contempt and committal to civil jail was coercive in nature and aimed at enforcing obedience of court orders. The prayer seeking police assistance was facilitative, intended to ensure that the eviction order is executed in a lawful, orderly, and peaceful manner.
19. These reliefs was therefore logically connected and mutually reinforcing. They constituted a structured enforcement mechanism arising from the same judgment rather than a bundle of unrelated or vague claims. As such, the application never fell within the mischief contemplated in the definition of an omnibus pleading as set out in the case of “Waweru & 2 others – Versus - Maina (Supra)” .
20. In the premises, the Learned Counsel respectfully submitted that the Notice of Motion dated 16 th February, 2026 was coherent, properly structured, and grounded on a single factual foundation arising from the Judgment and Decree of this Honorable Court. The p
[...truncated]
1. This Honourable Court was called upon to determine two ( 2 ) Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 by Jeremiah’s Creek Limited , the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. The 2 nd application was the one dated 18 th February, 2026 by Tabitha Ndungu , the 1 st Defendant. This Application was brought under the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 38 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, together with all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. Upon service of the 1 st application, the Defendant/Respondent, filed responses vide a 16 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit dated 12 th march, 2026. Likewise, while opposing the 2 nd application, the Plaintiff herein filed their replies vide a Replying Affidavit dated………………..Thus, the Honourable Court has dealt with the two applications simultaneously but distinctly and separately and reserved an omnibus Ruling herein.
II. The Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 by the Plaintiff/Applicant
3. The Plaintiff/Applicant sought for the following orders: -
a) Spent.
b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant post-judgment.
c) That this Honorable Court be pleased to cite the Defendant/Respondent for contempt of court for willfully disobeying and deliberately disobeying the Judgment of this Honorable Court dated 4 th August, 2025 issued by Honorable Lady Justice A.E. Dena.
d) That this Honorable Court be pleased to commit the Defendant/Respondent to civil jail for a period of Six (6) Months or impose such other sanctions as it deems fit in the circumstances.
e) That this Honorable Court be pleased to direct the Officer Commanding Station (OCS),Diani Police Station and/or such other police officers as may be necessary to provide security and maintain peace and order during the execution of the eviction, and to prevent any breach of the peace, obstruction, intimidation or interference with the Court Bailiff/Auctioneer and/or the Applicant/Decree Holder.
f) That the costs of this application be provided for.
4. The application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the 14 Paragraphed annexed supporting affidavit of DAVID NEEDHAM, the director of the Plaintiff/ Applicant averred as follows that:-
i. He was well versed with the matters pertinent to the suit and hence competent to swear the Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
ii. Pursuant to the Judgment dated and delivered on 4 th August, 2025 (“the Judgment”), this Honourable Court made the following determination:
(a) The eviction of the Defendant/Respondent from Plot No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 (Herein after referred to as “the Suit Property”) and vacant possession thereof was to be effected within 120 days from the date of delivery of the Judgment.
(b) The eviction was to be peaceful, dignified and carried out in a humane manner should the Defendant/Respondent fail to vacate at the expiry of 120 days.
iii. The Defendant/Respondent and/or her advocates were aware of the Judgment that was delivered and the consequential Decree dated 9 th December, 2025 (“the Decree”) issued thereafter. Annexed hereto and marked as “DN - 1” was a copy of the Judgment and the Decree dated 4 th August, 2025.
iv. Despite being aware of the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the Defendant/Respondent had willfully failed and/or refused to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court.
v. The Plaintiff/Applicant had unsuccessfully made several attempts to get the Defendant out of the suit property in a humane and dignified manner, but the Defendant/Respondent continued to show contempt to the orders of this Honourable Court as laid out in the Judgment.
vi. It had been over 120 days since the Judgment was delivered but the Defendant/Respondent had willfully refused to vacate the suit property to give effect to the orders of this Honourable Court.
vii. As recent as 10 th February, 2026, the Plaintiff/Applicant had caused the Judgment and Decree to be affixed in a conspicuous place on the suit property as a reminder to the Defendant/Respondent, but she continued to be in contempt of the orders. Annexed hereto and marked as “DN - 2” was a photograph of the Judgment and Decree posted on the gate to the entry of the Suit Property.
viii. The actions of the Defendant/Respondent undermined the authority of this Honourable Court and risked rendering its orders nugatory unless effective steps were undertaken to enforce compliance.
ix. The orders of this Honourable Court were not issued in vain, the Plaintiff/Applicant had sought the intervention of this Honourable Court to assist in the compliance of the Judgment and the Decree.
x. The continued willful disobedience of the Judgment by the Defendant/Respondent continued to deprive the Plaintiff of its constitutionally guaranteed right to the protection of its property while at the same time showing contempt to this Honourable Court of its validly issued court orders.
xi. To ensure that the eviction was carried out in the manner stated in the Judgment, the Plaintiff/Applicant sought for a directive to be given to the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Diani Police Station and/or such other police officers as might have been necessary to provide security and maintain peace and order during the execution of the eviction, and to prevent any breach of the peace, obstruction, intimidation or interference with the Court Bailiff/Auctioneer and/or the Applicant/Decree Holder.
xii. The orders sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant were granted, the Defendant/Respondent stood to deprive the Plaintiff/Applicant of its constitutionally guaranteed right to the protection of its property.
xiii. The facts deponed to herein were true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information, sources whereof had been disclosed, and matters deponed to on belief, the grounds whereupon had been given for such belief.
III. The Grounds of opposition by the Defendant/Respondent
5. The Defendant/Respondent opposed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 through a grounds of opposition dated 12 th March, 2026 on the following grounds:-
a. The Application was bad in law, grossly misplaced, lacking in merits and otherwise an abuse of the due process of the Court.
b. The Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in this matter as the Advocates on record the Plaintiff is ABK Advocates LLP, and they had not been removed from so acting. In the premises, said law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in this matter, as purported or at all
c. The Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026 was omnibus and thus incapable of being heard and/or prosecuted as it was or at all, and ought to be struck out.
d. The Orders sought Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026 could not be granted as sought or at all.
e. The Application herein had no basis and thus ought to be forthwith dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
IV. The responses by the 1 st Defendant to the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026
6. Additionally, the 1 st Defendant responded to the Notice of Motion application through a 16 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by TABITHA NDUNGU on 12 th March, 2026 wherein the Affiant deponed as follows that:-
i. She was the 1 st Defendant therein and of sound mind, well versed with the issues in that matter, and thus she was competent to swear that Affidavit.
ii. The Law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP had no right of audience in that matter as the Advocates on record for the Plaintiff were ABK Advocates LLP, and they had not been removed from acting.
iii. Notwithstanding the above, though that Honourable Court had delivered Judgment on the 4 th August, 2025, she had been aggrieved by the entire Judgment, consequent to which she filed an Appeal by lodging the Notice of Appeal dated the 8 th August, 2025, which had been duly paid for on the 10 th August, 2025 as evidenced by Receipt No. RB-0122794 in the CTS.
iv. Since the said Appeal was to the Court of Appeal, she had been informed by her Advocate, Mr. R. M. Tindika, and she verily believed the said information to be true, that having filed the Notice of Appeal, there was consequently an Appeal lodged with and pending before the Court of Appeal in pursuance of the mandatory provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provided:-
“For the purposes of this rule an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to have been filed when under the Rules of that Court notice of appeal has been given.”
v. The 1 st Defendant was a total stranger to the allegations that David Needham or anyone on behalf of the Plaintiff had made attempts to get out of the suit property in any humane or dignified manner, other than the illegal disconnection of her electric power and unlawful posting of Notice by the said David Needham at the gate of the suit property.
vi. She had claim to the suit property by the fact that the same had been bought by her late Husband, Charles Kamau (Deceased), through a Company, Escafeld Holdings Limited, which he had incorporated with Maureen Millet, and which had proceeded to purchase the suit property from the Interested Party, Andrew Thiaine Imwati. Consequent to the said purchase, the original Title Deed to the suit property, which was to be transferred to the said Company after paying the full purchase price thereof, had been obtained.
vii. She reiterated, as she had averred in her Affidavit in support of the Application for injunction and stay of execution of the Judgment therein, that no transaction had taken place between the Plaintiff and the original owner of the suit property, Andrew Thiaine Imwati, and specifically, the Plaintiff had not paid a single cent for the purchase of the property. This was a serious triable issue that was to be addressed by the Court of Appeal in the said pending Appeal.
viii. Further, in order to obtain the illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent title deed for the suit property, the Plaintiff had presented before the Land Registrar, Kwale, documents that were not capable of passing any interest thereof, had never been executed, and therefore the transfer had been grossly fraudulent. This position had been supported by the Land Registrar who testified on behalf of the 2 nd Defendant; this was another very serious issue that was to be determined by the Court of Appeal.
ix. The Plaintiff’s Director, David Needham, was a foreigner, being a citizen of Great Britain, and thus armed with a Title Deed which had been illegally, unlawfully, wrongfully, and fraudulently obtained. If the suit property had been released to him, as wrongfully sought in the Application at hand, the Plaintiff would have proceeded to sell, dispose of, or part with ownership of the suit property in an endeavour to frustrate any Appeal to the Court of Appeal. This explained why the Director aforesaid had used all illegal means to wrestle the property from her hands, which would have had the obvious effect of rendering the Appeal nugatory.
x. There had been need for the suit property to be preserved, and the best way to do so had been to issue injunctive orders as well as an order of stay of execution of the Decree emanating from the Judgment of that Honourable Court against the Plaintiff as per the Notice of Motion Application dated the 18 th February, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the said Appeal.
xi. The lodging of the Record of Appeal to the Court of Appeal had been awaiting the certified copies of Proceedings and Judgment, which that Honourable Court had yet to avail, and hence the delay in filing the Record of Appeal could not be blamed on her.
xii. The 1 st Defendant’s Application for stay of execution of the Decree as well as injunction pending Appeal had clearly been made within the confines of the law, not only under the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 but also under other provisions of the law as cited in her Application dated the 18 th February, 2026, and that the said Application had not been a reaction to the Plaintiff’s Application as alleged.
xiii. From the Plaintiff’s illegal, unlawful, wrongful, and fraudulent actions of obtaining the Title Deed to the suit property, despite the fact that the original Title Deed existed and had never been cancelled, the Plaintiff had, by the Application at hand, been geared towards illegally, unlawfully, and wrongfully removing and/or evicting her from the property so that he might defeat her and the Estate of her Husband’s right, interest, and claim to the suit property, which would have had the consequence of occasioning them irredeemable and irreparable loss and damage.
xiv. She had strenuously opposed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion Application dated the 16 th February, 2026, and she prayed that the same be dismissed with costs to her.
xv. All what she had stated therein above was true to the best of her knowledge and belief, save for information sources whereof she had been disclosed and which she verily believed to be true.
V. The Notice of Motion Application dated 18 th February, 2026 by the Defendant
7. The Notice of Motion application by the Defendant was brought pursuant to the following provisions - Articles 40, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Order 42 Rule 6 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of the Civil procedure Rules, Section 19 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
The Defendant sought for the following orders:-
a) Spent.
b) That this Honourable Court does issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff, by itself, its Director (s), agents, assignees, employees, servants, nominees or any one claiming through or under it from entering into, selling or offering to sell, disposing off, charging, mortgaging, sub – dividing, pleading, entering into, remaining in or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s ownership and quiet possession and enjoyment of all that property known as Plot/Title Number Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 together with the buildings and/or improvements, trees, vegetation and/or crops thereon pending the hearing and determination of this application.
c) That this Honourable Court does issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff, by itself, its Director (s), agents, assignees, employees, servants, nominees or any one claiming through or under it from entering into, selling or offering to sell, disposing off, charging, mortgaging, sub – dividing, pleading, entering into, remaining in or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s ownership and quiet possession and enjoyment of all that property known as Plot/Title Number Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 together with the buildings and/or improvements, trees, vegetation and/or crops thereon pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025.
d) That this Honourable Court to make an Order of Stay of Execution of the Decree arising from the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025 pending the inter - parte hearing of this Application.
e) That this Honourable Court to make an Order of Stay of Execution of the Decree arising from the Judgement and Decree of this Honourable Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025 pending the lodging, hearing and determination of the intended Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Judgement and Decree of this Court delivered and/or made on 4 th day of August, 2025.
f) That costs of this application be borne by the Plaintiff.
8. The application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the 29 Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit by TABITHA NDUNGU sworn and dated on 18 th February, 2026 tother with seven ( 7 ) annextures marked as “TN”. She averred as follows that:-
VI. The responses to the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 by the Plaintiff
9. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 through a 21 paragraphed replying affidavit sworn by DAVID NEEDHAM on 11 th March, 2026 wherein he responded as follows:
a. He was the director of the Plaintiff/Respondent with full authority and knowledge of the facts pertaining to that suit; hence competent to swear that affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
b. The had read and understood the Notice of Motion application dated 18 th February, 2026 and the Supporting Affidavit of Tabitha Ndungu of even date filed by the 1st Defendant/Applicant under a Certificate of Urgency and wished to respond to the same as hereunder.
c. In response to Paragraphs 2 – 10 of the Supporting Affidavit, he had been advised by the Plaintiff/Respondent’s advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that all the facts deponed to by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant were Res - Judicata after the same had been settled in the judgment of that Honourable Court dated 4 th August, 2025.
d. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant’s act of trying to relitigate the issues through the back door was akin to asking that Honourable Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction where it had already been rendered functus officio.
e. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff/Respondent had noticed that there was a Notice of Appeal filed on 10 th August, 2025, but the same referred to a decision of a different trial judge delivered on a different date.
f. Further and without prejudice to the foregoing, it therefore remained unclear whether the Notice of Appeal had been intended for that particular suit or for a different matter. However, it should not have been the duty of that Honourable Court to decode the intentions of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant.
g. In the alternative, if it had been a genuine mistake made by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant in the drafting process of the Notice of Appeal, it therefore behooved the 1 st Defendant/Applicant, over 194 days, to file an Amended Notice of Appeal without even seeking leave of that Honourable Court to enlarge time to have the same admitted on record to regularize the process.
h. In response to Paragraphs 12 – 13 of the Supporting Affidavit, the 1 st Defendant/Applicant ought to have known that a court of law did not issue orders in vain and hence the same had to be complied with unless a stay order had been issued pending an appeal process.
i. Further and without prejudice to the foregoing, the only thing that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had demonstrated was the effort made in obtaining certified proceedings required for filing a Record of Appeal, but no explanation as to why she had and continued to openly defy the orders made in the Judgment.
j. In further support of Paragraphs 8 – 9 hereinabove, the averments made by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant were merely sideshows which did not address the germane issue of why she had failed to obey lawful court orders in existence as per the Judgment.
k. In response to paragraphs 16 – 20, the Plaintiff/Respondent had no powers or authority to direct Kenya Power (KP) on the disconnection of a lawful connection. And if the same had been done by KP, the Plaintiff believed that proper protocols had to be followed to ensure KP did not abuse its authority.
l. Further and in support of paragraph 15 hereinabove, the Plaintiff/Respondent could not therefore be blamed for any misfortunes that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had faced as a result of a disconnection done by KP exercising its lawful authority.
m. In response to paragraph 21 of the Supporting Affidavit, indeed it was true that he had posted the judgment on the main door of the suit property. No illegal act had been performed, as it had been done to bring awareness to the 1 st Defendant/Applicant on the existing orders which ought to have been complied with.
n. In response to paragraphs 23 – 25 of the Supporting Affidavit, it was crystal clear that the Notice of Motion application filed by the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had been simply an afterthought and a knee-jerk reaction to the Plaintiff/Respondent’s application made via Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026, which had sought to evict the Defendant/Applicant from the suit property known as Plot No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 pursuant to the Decree dated 4 th August, 2025.
o. He had been advised by his advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that the maxims of equity provided that “equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent,” and hence the present application under the Notice of Motion application was one such instance.
p. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant had failed to seek stay orders early to justify her continued stay in the suit property despite the existing Judgment and Decree. Instead, she had chosen the path of contempt of court orders knowing full well that it had adverse consequences.
q. He had further been advised by his advocates on record, which advice he believed to be true, that one could not approach that Honourable Court with unclean hands the way the Defendant/Applicant had.
r. The 1 st Defendant/Applicant could not therefore approach that Honourable Court, albeit late in the day, seeking temporary relief while at the same time showing contempt to the orders of that Honourable Court.
s. Contrary to the averments of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant in Paragraph 26 of the Supporting Affidavit, her approach to that Honourable Court seeking stay orders had been merely an afterthought. Otherwise, there was no justifiable explanation as to why she had waited well over the 120 days, being the grace period under the Judgment and Decree, before filing the Notice of Motion application seeking stay orders.
t. In response to Paragraphs 27 – 28 of the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff reiterated the contents of Paragraphs 15 – 18 hereinabove and further stated that the 1 st Defendant/Applicant had not been deserving of the orders she had sought. Courts of law did not issue orders in vain, and hence the 1 st Defendant/Applicant could not simply seek to be granted orders against the Plaintiff/Respondent and expect them to be obeyed when she was in actual contempt of existing court orders.
u. Whatever had been deponed therein was true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information, sources whereof had been disclosed, and matters deponed to on belief, the grounds whereupon had been given.
VII. Submissions
10. On 12 th March, 2026 while all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the two ( 2 ) Notice of Motion applications dated 16 th and 18 th February, 2026 be disposed of by way of written submissions and all the parties complied. Pursuant to that all the parties fully obliged and a ruling date was reserved on 18 th June, 2026 by the Honourable Court. Eventually, it was delivered on 30 th July, 2026 accordingly.
A. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff in support of the Notice of Motion Application dated 16 th February, 2026
11. The Plaintiff through the law firm of Messrs. Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP, filed their written submissions dated 1 st May, 2026. Mr. Githiomi Advocate submitted these submissions had been made on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein in support of the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant under Certificate of Urgency and supported by an affidavit of even date sworn by DAVID NEEDHAM seeking the above orders.
12. In response, the Defendant/Respondent filed her Grounds of Opposition dated 12 th March, 2026 and the Replying Affidavit of even date sworn by TABITHA NDUNGU opposing the Notice of Motion. Through these submissions, they would seek to persuade this Honorable Court on why the Notice of Motion was merited and therefore, should be allowed.
13. On the brief facts, the Learned Counsel submitted that on 4 th August, 2025, this Honorable Court delivered its judgment, wherein it ordered the eviction of the Defendant/Respondent from the land known as Title No. Kwale/Diani Complex/1069 and directed that the Defendant/Respondent vacate the suit property within 120 days from the date of the judgment. The Court further directed that in the event the Defendant/Respondent failed to vacate within the stipulated period, eviction would ensue and that such eviction be carried out in a peaceful, humane and dignified manner. Despite being aware of the Judgment and the Decree subsequently issued on 9 th December, 2025, the Defendant/Respondent has willfully failed and/or refused to comply with the orders of this Honorable Court.
14. More than 120 days had since elapsed, yet the Defendant/Respondent continues to unlawfully remain on the Suit Property in blatant disobedience of the orders of this Court. The Plaintiff/Applicant had made several attempts to persuade the Defendant/Respondent to vacate the Suit Property voluntarily and in a dignified manner, but those efforts had been unsuccessful. The Defendant/Respondent’s continued occupation of the Suit Property therefore constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful court order and amounted to a direct affront to the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court. In the circumstances, it was therefore necessary for this Court to intervene to enforce compliance with its orders and to give effect to the judgment delivered on 4 th August, 2025.
15. The Learned Counsel relied on the following issues for determination:-
(a) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 16 th February, 2026 was competent and properly before this Honorable Court?
(b) Whether the law firm of Githiomi Mungai Advocates LLP should be granted leave to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant post - Judgment?
(c) Whether the Defendant/Respondent is in contempt of court?
(d) Whether the Court should grant orders committing the Defendant/Respondent to civil jail?
(e) Whether the Court should direct the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Diani Police Station to provide security during the execution of the eviction
16. On whether the Notice of Motion dated 16 th February, 2026 was Competent and Properly before this Honorable Court. The Learned Counsel opined that the 1 st Defendant/Respondent had challenged the Notice of Motion application her Grounds of Opposition by contending, inter alia, that it was “omnibus” and therefore incompetent and incapable of being sustained. The Eldoret Court of Appeal defined the meaning of “omnibus” in the case of “Waweru & 2 Others – Versus - Maina [2026] eKLR” as:
“Pleadings that seek multiple, often contradictory or vague reliefs, or implead numerous parties without specific allegations against each…which bundle numerous, often unrelated requests or broad complaints without specific, substantiated facts…”
17. From the foregoing definition, it was evident that what renders an application “omnibus” in the objectionable sense was not the mere fact that it contains multiple prayers, but rather where such prayers are vague, contradictory, unrelated, or incapable of being properly adjudicated due to lack of factual anchoring or coherence. The decisive question therefore was whether the Notice of Motion application contained vague, unrelated, or contradictory reliefs of the kind contemplated in the above definition, or whether the prayers therein arise from a coherent factual foundation and pursue a singular objective capable of determination by this Honorable Court.
18. The Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, all the reliefs sought in the application arise from a single, clear, and undisputed factual matrix namely, the Defendant/Respondent’s continued failure and refusal to comply with the Judgment and Decree of this Honorable Court delivered on 4 th August, 2025. The application is therefore anchored on one central cause of action enforcement of a lawful court judgment. Properly analyzed, the prayers are neither contradictory nor unrelated. The prayer for leave to come on record post - Judgment was procedural and intended to regularize representation in compliance with the provision of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The prayers seeking a finding of contempt and committal to civil jail was coercive in nature and aimed at enforcing obedience of court orders. The prayer seeking police assistance was facilitative, intended to ensure that the eviction order is executed in a lawful, orderly, and peaceful manner.
19. These reliefs was therefore logically connected and mutually reinforcing. They constituted a structured enforcement mechanism arising from the same judgment rather than a bundle of unrelated or vague claims. As such, the application never fell within the mischief contemplated in the definition of an omnibus pleading as set out in the case of “Waweru & 2 others – Versus - Maina (Supra)” .
20. In the premises, the Learned Counsel respectfully submitted that the Notice of Motion dated 16 th February, 2026 was coherent, properly structured, and grounded on a single factual foundation arising from the Judgment and Decree of this Honorable Court. The p
[...truncated]