[2023] KEELC 17133 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17133 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order entered into by the parties was not in dispute and that the defendants had failed to comply with its terms within the agreed timelines. The reasons advanced by the defendants for the delay, namely the conversion of titles, did not justify further extension of time, especially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17133 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Julius Arinaitwe; Defendant: Balbir Singh Kalsi; Defendant: Sawant Singh Kalsi; Defendant: Hardev Singh Kalsi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 243 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion Applications Regarding Execution of Consent Order and Transfer of Property
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; defendants' application dismissed.
Judges
MD Mwangi
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment Enforcement, Transfer of Title, Registration of Sublease, Court Execution of Documents
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Consent Judgment Enforcement Transfer of Title Registration of Sublease Court Execution of Documents

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Arinaitwe

Plaintiff

Balbir Singh Kalsi

Defendant

Sawant Singh Kalsi

Defendant

Hardev Singh Kalsi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion Applications Regarding Execution of Consent Order and Transfer of Property

  1. 1 Whether the court should enlarge time for the defendants to comply with the consent order regarding transfer of property.
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar should be appointed to execute the transfer/sub-lease documents on behalf of the defendants due to their failure to comply within the agreed timelines.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of registration and transfer of the sub-lease.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order entered into by the parties was not in dispute and that the defendants had failed to comply with its terms within the agreed timelines. The reasons advanced by the defendants for the delay, namely the conversion of titles, did not justify further extension of time, especially as the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the consent. The court held that it was empowered under Order 22 Rule 28(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules to appoint the Deputy Registrar to execute the necessary documents to effect the transfer/sub-lease in favour of the plaintiff. This would expedite the process and bring the matter to a close, as the defendants had not...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; defendants' application dismissed.

Orders

  • The Deputy Registrar of the court is to execute the transfer/sub-lease and any other requisite documents necessary for registration of a sub-lease in respect of Flat No LR No 1870/IV/82 in Nairobi in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in terms of the consent dated 18th November 2021.
  • The costs of registration of the sub-lease and transfer of Flat No 2, including stamp duty, are to be paid and/or recovered from the defendants jointly and severally.