[2014] KEHC 4887 (KLR)
The court found that a valid consent order was entered on 29th September 2008 requiring the respondent to transfer 0.5 hectares of the suit land to the applicant. The respondent was served with the present application and did not oppose it. The court held that there was no reason not to grant the application, as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4887 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: David Mumo Ndambuki; Applicant: Mutisya Katula
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 288 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement of Consent Order
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed; enforcement of consent order granted.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Transfer of Land, Execution of Judgments
- 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
David Mumo Ndambuki
Respondent
Mutisya Katula
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement of Consent Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enforce the consent order for transfer of 0.5 hectares from the suit premises to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the Machakos District Surveyor should be directed to excise the portion and the respondent compelled to sign transfer documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that a valid consent order was entered on 29th September 2008 requiring the respondent to transfer 0.5 hectares of the suit land to the applicant. The respondent was served with the present application and did not oppose it. The court held that there was no reason not to grant the application, as the consent order remains unimplemented and is binding. The court therefore granted the orders sought to enforce the consent, including directing the District Surveyor to excise the portion and authorizing the Deputy Registrar to sign transfer documents if the respondent defaults.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed; enforcement of consent order granted.
Orders
- The Machakos District Surveyor is directed to excise 0.5 hectares from Machakos/Kiandani/3682 in compliance with the consent order.
- The respondent is directed to sign all documents required to effect the transfer of the excised portion and obtain Land Control Board consents; in default, the Deputy Registrar shall sign the documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 288 OF 1999
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OFKIMILU NZAU KIVATI (DECEASED)
DAVID MUMO NDAMBUKI……………...ADMINISTRATOR
VERSUS
MUTISYA KATULA………………………............APPLICANT RULING
The applicant has filed an application dated 29th January 2014 seeking for orders that; firstly, the court do direct the Machakos District Surveyor to go to land parcel number Machakos/Kiandani/3682 (hereinafter “the suit premises”)and excise therefrom a portion measuring 0. 5 hectares, in compliance with the consent order entered by the parties and recorded by this court on 29th September 2008. Secondly, that the respondent be directed to sign all the documents required to effect the transfer of the excised portion and obtain the Land Control Board Consents for transferring in default of which the Deputy Registrar shall sign the documents
The application is supported by a supporting affidavit deponed by the applicant who avers that: on 29th September he entered into a consent with the respondent to transfer him 0. 5 Hectares out of the suit premises which portion he had acquired as a purchaser for value from the deceased. The consent is yet to be implemented and he requires the surveyor to excise the portion that belongs to him.
Analysis
I have perused the court record and established that indeed on 29th September 2008, the petitioner and the objector counsels were present before Lenaola J. where they recorded a consent. The consent reads:
“The application dated 24th November 2004 be allowed in the following terms:
The petitioner herein do transfer to the applicant 0. 5 hectares out of Machakos/Kiandani/3682;
The said 0. 5 hectares includes that portion that had already been sold by the applicant to one Harrison Muthoka Mulela,
The restriction registered against the said properties be and are hereby lifted on condition that order no. 1 above is effected,
Each party to bear its own costs.”
The consent clearly indicates that the petitioner was amenable to transfer of 0. 5 hectares out of the suit premises to the applicant and was required to lift any restrictions registered therein.
Indeed this application by the applicant was served on the petitioner herein and an affidavit of service dated 22nd May 2014 was filed in this court as proof of service. No replying affidavit was filed by the petitioner and as such the application is not opposed.
I therefore see no reasons why the application should not be granted as prayed. Subsequently, I grant prayers 1 and 2.
Costs of this application are awarded to the applicant
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVEREDat MACHAKOS this 23RDday of MAY, 2014.
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE