[2014] KEHC 6020 (KLR)
The court's decision was based on the consent entered into by the parties, which resolved all substantive issues in dispute. The consent provided for the plaintiffs to give vacant possession to facilitate upgrading, allowed them to remove their materials, and guaranteed them first priority in future allocations. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6020 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lewis Mwirigi & 10 Others; Defendant: The Governor Meru County; Defendant: Attorney General (for 3rd Defendant)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 5 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment on Recorded Consent
- Outcome
- case settled by consent; consent adopted as judgment
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Procedure, Injunctive Relief, Consent 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
Lewis Mwirigi & 10 Others
Plaintiff
The Governor Meru County
Defendant
Attorney General (for 3rd Defendant)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment on Recorded Consent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice given to the plaintiffs to vacate was legally sufficient.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction restraining demolition or eviction.
- 3 Whether the parties' consent should be adopted as the judgment of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court's decision was based on the consent entered into by the parties, which resolved all substantive issues in dispute. The consent provided for the plaintiffs to give vacant possession to facilitate upgrading, allowed them to remove their materials, and guaranteed them first priority in future allocations. The court adopted the consent as its judgment, marking the case as settled with each party bearing its own costs. The adoption of the consent rendered the original claims and defenses moot, as the parties had agreed on a binding resolution of the dispute.
Court Disposition
case settled by consent; consent adopted as judgment
Orders
- Plaintiffs to give vacant possession of the stalls to the 2nd defendant immediately to facilitate upgrading.
- Plaintiffs allowed to carry away materials including stocks, building stones, iron sheets, windows, and doors.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
E & L NO. 5 OF 2014
LEWIS MWIRIGI & 10 OTHERS ….............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE GOVERNOR MERU COUNTY & 2 OTHERS...............................DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
This suit was filed on 20th January, 2014. In their plaint the plaintiffs sought judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for:
(a) A declaration that the notice given to them was too short and bad in law.
(b) A permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees (sic) from demolishing the plaintiff's stalls pending hearing of this case.
(c) Costs of this case and interest.
The plaintiffs filed an application dated 20th January, 2014 under a certificate of urgency seeking, inter alia, an order of temporary injunction preventing the 1st and 2nd defendants from demolishing their stalls or evicting them therefrom. The order sought was granted and the plaintiffs' application was to be heard on 3. 3.2014.
On 3. 3.2014 the parties requested the court to record a consent they had entered into and adopt its contents as orders of the court.
The consent was in the following terms:
(a) “The plaintiffs do give vacant possession of the stalls to 2nd defendant immediately to facilitate upgrading of the stalls.
(b) That the plaintiffs be allowed to carry away materiasl i.e. stocks, building stones, iron sheets, windows and doors.
(c) That upon completion of the construction and or upgrading the plaintiffs be given1st priority by the County Government as appertaining the allocations.
(d) That this case be marked settled with each party bearing own costs.”
The consent was signed by the firm of Leonard K. Ondari & Co. Advocated, for the plaintiffs and by Mr. Thuranira Atheru, Legal Officer, Meru County Government, for the 1st and 2nd defendants.
This Court adopts the terms of the consent as orders of the court to be obeyed by the apposite parties.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 3rd day of March, 2014 in the presence of:
Cc. Daniel
Ondari for Applicant
Kiongo for the A.G.
Atheru for 1st and 2nd Defendants
P. M. Njoroge
JUDGE