[2020] KEELC 2003 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2003 (KLR)

The court found that the consent dated 22/1/2019 and filed on 7/2/2019 constituted a binding compromise between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, effectively settling both the plaintiff's suit and the 1st defendant's counterclaim. As neither party had challenged or sought to withdraw the consent, and there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2003 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Nganga Kibe; 1st Defendant: Rebeccah Muthoni Kiama; 2nd Defendant: Meshack Mbuthia Gitau alias Michek Mbuthia Gitau
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 490 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 17/6/2019
Outcome
Application declined; suit and counterclaim compromised by consent; no order as to costs.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Specific Performance, Consent Judgments, Breach of Contract, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sale of Land Specific Performance Consent Judgments Breach of Contract Injunctive Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

John Nganga Kibe

Plaintiff

Rebeccah Muthoni Kiama

1st Defendant

Meshack Mbuthia Gitau alias Michek Mbuthia Gitau

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 17/6/2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent dated 22/1/2019 and filed on 7/2/2019 compromised the plaintiff's suit and the 1st defendant's counterclaim.
  2. 2 Whether the orders sought by the 1st defendant in the application dated 17/6/2019 are available to the 1st defendant in this suit.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent dated 22/1/2019 and filed on 7/2/2019 constituted a binding compromise between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, effectively settling both the plaintiff's suit and the 1st defendant's counterclaim. As neither party had challenged or sought to withdraw the consent, and there was no evidence that it contravened the law or public policy, the court was obliged to accept it as a valid compromise under Order 25 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that the orders sought by the 1st defendant in the notice of motion dated 17/6/2019 were premised on a new cause of action—breach of contract after the compromise—which could not be...

Court Disposition

Application declined; suit and counterclaim compromised by consent; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The court accepts the consent dated 22/1/2019 as a binding compromise under Order 25 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The 1st defendant's notice of motion dated 17/6/2019 is declined as it is premised on a new cause of action not available in this suit.