[2024] KEHC 13558 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 13558 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order of 26 July 2024 was entered into by the parties, represented by their advocates, after negotiations and with full knowledge of the circumstances, including Luo customs. No evidence was provided to show that the Plaintiff did not instruct her counsel or that the consent was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 13558 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: MO; Defendant: MAO
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
Civil Case E011 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Consent Order and for Contempt
Outcome
Applications to set aside or vary the consent order and for contempt dismissed; consent order of 26 July 2024 stands; no orders as to costs.
Judges
H Namisi
Legal Topics
Burial Disputes, Consent Orders, Contempt of Court, Customary Law, Family Conflict
Source Language
english
Family and Children Burial Disputes Consent Orders Contempt of Court Customary Law Family Conflict

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MO

Plaintiff

MAO

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Consent Order and for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order of 26 July 2024 ought to be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff and Defendant are in contempt of the consent orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order of 26 July 2024 was entered into by the parties, represented by their advocates, after negotiations and with full knowledge of the circumstances, including Luo customs. No evidence was provided to show that the Plaintiff did not instruct her counsel or that the consent was obtained by fraud, collusion, or misapprehension of material facts. The court held that both parties had, to some extent, acted contrary to the consent order, but these actions did not justify setting aside or varying the consent. The court emphasized that a change of mind or dissatisfaction with the outcome is not a ground for setting aside a consent order. The applications to set...

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside or vary the consent order and for contempt dismissed; consent order of 26 July 2024 stands; no orders as to costs.

Orders

  • The applications dated 5 August 2024 and 11 August 2024 are dismissed.
  • The consent order of 26 July 2024 remains in force.