[2014] KEHC 6495 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 6495 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order of 2nd June 2011, which directed the transfer of 2½ acres of Mavoko Town Block to the applicant, had not been set aside or varied and thus remained valid and binding. The respondent's refusal to execute the necessary documents for subdivision and transfer was not supported by any satisfactory legal reason. The court held that it was empowered to direct the Registrar to execute the documents on behalf of the respondent to enforce its orders. The application to set aside the consent order was dismissed for non-attendance and want of prosecution. Accordingly, the court allowed the applicant's motion, granting the orders sought and awarding costs to the...

Citation
[2014] KEHC 6495 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: K M P; Respondent: G M M; Interested Party: R N N
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Case Number
Civil Case 39 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Motion to Enforce Consent Order and for Execution of Documents
Outcome
Application allowed; respondent's application dismissed for non-attendance and want of prosecution.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Land Subdivision, Transfer of Land
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Consent Orders Enforcement of Judgments Land Subdivision Transfer of Land

Case Brief

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K M P

Applicant

G M M

Respondent

R N N

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Motion to Enforce Consent Order and for Execution of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order of 2nd June 2011 regarding subdivision and transfer of Mavoko Town Block is valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar of the High Court should be directed to execute documents on behalf of the respondent due to his refusal to comply with the consent order.
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside the consent order should be dismissed for non-attendance and want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order of 2nd June 2011, which directed the transfer of 2½ acres of Mavoko Town Block to the applicant, had not been set aside or varied and thus remained valid and binding. The respondent's refusal to execute the necessary documents for subdivision and transfer was not supported by any satisfactory legal reason. The court held that it was empowered to direct the Registrar to execute the documents on behalf of the respondent to enforce its orders. The application to set aside the consent order was dismissed for non-attendance and want of prosecution. Accordingly, the court allowed the applicant's motion, granting the orders sought and awarding costs to the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; respondent's application dismissed for non-attendance and want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The Registrar of the High Court is directed to sign and execute the mutation form and application for consent of Land Control Board in relation to Mavoko Town Block [particulars withheld] on behalf of the respondent.
  • The Registrar is further directed to sign and execute all other documents necessary to facilitate the subdivision and transfer of Mavoko Town Block [particulars withheld] on behalf of the respondent.