[2020] KEELC 99 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 99 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order recorded on 4/3/2014 was valid and binding on both parties, having previously declined to set it aside after considering all relevant evidence and arguments. The Defendant's application to review, set aside, or vary the orders of 5/5/2020 was dismissed as it failed to meet the legal threshold for review; there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the Defendant was attempting to re-litigate issues already determined. The Plaintiff's application to enforce the consent order was merited, as the Defendant had failed to comply with its terms regarding subdivision and rental income accounting. The Defendant was ordered to produce up-to-date...

Citation
[2020] KEELC 99 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paramjit Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur; Defendant: Avtar Singh Suri
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Case Number
? 738 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Applications for Enforcement of Consent Order and Review of Previous Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed in part; Defendant's application dismissed with costs to Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Joint Ownership, Rental Income Accounting, Specific Performance, Review of Orders
Source Language
English
Land and Property Consent Orders Joint Ownership Rental Income Accounting Specific Performance Review of Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paramjit Kaur alias Mandeep Kaur

Plaintiff

Avtar Singh Suri

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Applications for Enforcement of Consent Order and Review of Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order recorded on 4/3/2014 is valid and binding on the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be compelled to assist in subdivision of the Suit Property and produce rental accounts.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's application to review, set aside or vary the orders of 5/5/2020 meets the legal threshold.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order recorded on 4/3/2014 was valid and binding on both parties, having previously declined to set it aside after considering all relevant evidence and arguments. The Defendant's application to review, set aside, or vary the orders of 5/5/2020 was dismissed as it failed to meet the legal threshold for review; there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the Defendant was attempting to re-litigate issues already determined. The Plaintiff's application to enforce the consent order was merited, as the Defendant had failed to comply with its terms regarding subdivision and rental income accounting. The Defendant was ordered to produce up-to-date...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed in part; Defendant's application dismissed with costs to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Prayer 1 of the Plaintiff's application dated 18/10/2019 is granted: police to assist Plaintiff and surveyors in subdivision of the Suit Property as per consent order of 4/3/2014.
  • Defendant to produce up-to-date accounts of all rents received from the Suit Property from August 2015 to date within 30 days.