[2019] KEELC 2463 (KLR)
The court found that the consent order of 19th July 2017 was not a final judgment but an interim step towards settlement, as it did not address all aspects of the dispute such as costs. The court agreed with the 2nd defendant that the consent order did not require him to vacate the property, and therefore, it would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2463 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Catherine Hwere; Defendant: Julius Kipyegon Koech; Defendant: William Kipkemoi Langat
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 181 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Implementation of Consent and Directions for Hearing
- Outcome
- Suit to be set down for hearing; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Land Subdivision, Implementation of Court Orders, Survey Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Catherine Hwere
Plaintiff
Julius Kipyegon Koech
Defendant
William Kipkemoi Langat
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Implementation of Consent and Directions for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consent order of 19th July 2017 constituted a final settlement of the dispute.
- 2 Whether the court can order the 2nd defendant to vacate the property based on the consent order.
- 3 How to proceed when implementation of a consent order is frustrated by factual impossibility.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the consent order of 19th July 2017 was not a final judgment but an interim step towards settlement, as it did not address all aspects of the dispute such as costs. The court agreed with the 2nd defendant that the consent order did not require him to vacate the property, and therefore, it would be inappropriate to order his eviction based solely on the consent. Given the factual impossibility of implementing the consent due to the limited land available and the 2nd defendant's occupation, the court held that the only viable way forward was to set the suit down for hearing, unless the parties reached a more comprehensive agreement. The consent and surveyor's reports...
Court Disposition
Suit to be set down for hearing; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Parties to set down the suit for hearing.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAKURU
CASE No. 181 OF 2012
CATHERINE HWERE.................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS KIPYEGON KOECH............ 1ST DEFENDANT
WLLIAM KIPKEMOI LANGAT....... 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties herein recorded a consent on 19th July 2017 in the following terms:
1. The second defendant shall have land parcel number Njoro/Njoro/Block 4/890 (Belbur) subdivided.
2. The plaintiff be given 0. 25 (naught decimal two five) acres out of the parcel and the 2nd defendant be given 0. 5 (Naught decimal five) acres out of the parcel. The balance to go to the 1st defendant.
2. When parties went to the ground to implement the consent, complications arose which made it necessary for the court to order on 18th January 2018 that the Surveyor Nakuru County carries out a survey of land parcel number Njoro/Njoro Block 4/890 (Belbur) so as to effect the court’s orders of 19th July 2017. When the surveyor went to the ground, more difficulties emerged as stated in his report dated 15th February 2018. He noted that the parcel number Njoro/Njoro Block 4/890 (Belbur) which was to be subdivided did not appear in the map held by the survey office owing to the fact that the 2nd defendant had already subdivided it. He suggested that the court orders cancellation of the survey creating the sub-divisions since they were not yet registered. Parties were generally in agreement with the way forward as suggested by the surveyor. In a ruling dated 25th May 2018, I gave orders to facilitate implementation of the surveyor’s recommendations. I ordered as follows:
a) The Land Registrar Nakuru is hereby ordered not to register Mutation Form dated 27th September 2017 in respect of parcel number Njoro/Njoro Block 4/890 (Belbur). If the Mutation Form has been registered, then the registration be and is hereby cancelled.
b) The amendment of the Registry Index Map for Njoro/Njoro Block 4 (Belbur) to create parcel numbers 1890, 1891 and 1892 is hereby cancelled.
c) The District Surveyor Nakuru to comply with the orders of this court made on 19th July 2017 and on 18th January 2018.
3. The surveyor once again returned to the ground and prepared a report dated 17th July 2018 in which he yet again stated that the order of 19th July 2017 could not be implemented since although the court had by consent ordered that parcel number Njoro/Njoro/Block 4/890 (Belbur) be subdivided and that the plaintiff be given 0. 25 acres out of it, the 2nd defendant be given 0. 5 acres and the balance to go to the 1st defendant, the total land available to be shared by both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is only 0. 5 acres. He added that the 2nd defendant has occupied and developed the said 0. 5 acres. The surveyor therefore suggested that 2nd defendant moves out of the 0. 5 acres to facilitate implementation of the order of 19th July 2017.
4. When the matter next came up in court, both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were agreeable with the surveyor’s recommendations while the 2nd defendant found them unacceptable. According to the 2nd defendant, the consent of 19th July 2017 did not state that the 2nd defendant moves out of the property. Parties therefore urged the court to make a determination on the way forward.
5. I have considered the consent order of 19th July 2017, the surveyor’s report dated 17th July 2018 and positions taken by parties. The consent was parties’ attempt to solve the dispute before the court. From its wording, it did not purport to be a final judgment but was a step towards settling the dispute. If it was a final settlement, the parties would have addressed all aspects of the dispute including costs. I thus agree with the 2nd defendant that the consent cannot be the basis of ordering him to vacate. The way out is to have the suit heard and determined, unless of course parties reach a more conclusive agreement. The consent and the surveyor’s reports remain on record and parties are free to make such submissions on them as they wish.
6. In the end, I order that parties set down the suit for hearing. Costs in the cause.
7. Ruling herein was to be delivered on 27th February 2019 but was delayed since I proceeded on medical leave. The delay is regretted.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 15th day of July 2019.
D. O. OHUNGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance by counsel for the plaintiff
Plaintiff present in person
No appearance for the 1st defendant
Mr Maragia for the 2nd defendant
Court Assistants: Beatrice & Lotkomoi