Farida F Mbaraka and Another vs Domina kagaruki and another, Civil Appeal no 293 of 2020.

This case among other things provide the issue of restitution of the party whi has been demolished his house for execution. Court had this to say:

The last ground of cross appeal by the first respondent is that the
trial court ought to have ordered payment of money as an alternative to the order of demolition of the wall by the appellants and the second
respondent. With respect, we did not receive much input on this point but we think it is not involving. Bearing in mind that restitution is discretional and equitable in nature, we hesitate to go into the nitty gritty being suggested by the first respondent in the 5th and last ground
of cross appeal. We must consider the following definition of restitution as per Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition at page 1571:
“2. The set o f remedies associated with that body
o f law in that the measure o f recovery is based
not on the plaintiff’s loss but on the defendant’s
gain”.
In view of that definition, it cannot be said with any degree of
certainty how the appellants and the second respondent received
financial benefit by constructing the wall. That uncertainty makes the first respondent’s prayer for an alternative order of payment of money.