[2019] KEELC 3837 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3837 (KLR)

The court found that the agreement reached on 3rd August 2017 between the plaintiffs and the defendant, as evidenced by the signed minutes, constituted a binding compromise of the suit. The defendant's failure to execute a consent letter or pay the agreed sum did not negate the existence or enforceability of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3837 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Roy Mutua Kivusyu; Plaintiff: Joyce Mutua Kivusyu; Defendant: Nairobi City County; Interested Party: Nairobi City County Assembly Service Board; Interested Party: Nairobi City County Assembly
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 620 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission And/or Compromise
Outcome
Application allowed. Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant for Kshs.30,000,000 with costs and interest at court rates from 3rd August 2017 until payment in full and final satisfaction of the decree.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Judgment on Admission, Compromise of Suit, Enforcement of Settlement, Civil Procedure Rules, Consent Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judgment on Admission Compromise of Suit Enforcement of Settlement Civil Procedure Rules Consent Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy Mutua Kivusyu

Plaintiff

Joyce Mutua Kivusyu

Plaintiff

Nairobi City County

Defendant

Nairobi City County Assembly Service Board

Interested Party

Nairobi City County Assembly

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission And/or Compromise

  1. 1 Whether the agreement reached on 3rd August 2017 constitutes a binding compromise warranting judgment on admission for the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the court should enter judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of Kshs.30,000,000 as agreed by the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's failure to execute a consent letter or pay the agreed amount justifies entry of formal judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreement reached on 3rd August 2017 between the plaintiffs and the defendant, as evidenced by the signed minutes, constituted a binding compromise of the suit. The defendant's failure to execute a consent letter or pay the agreed sum did not negate the existence or enforceability of the agreement. The application was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for judgment on admission and compromise under Order 13 rules 1 and 2 and Order 25 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules were met. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of Kshs.30,000,000 with costs and interest at court rates from 3rd...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant for Kshs.30,000,000 with costs and interest at court rates from 3rd August 2017 until payment in full and final satisfaction of the decree.

Orders

  • Judgment on admission and/or by compromise is entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of Kshs.30,000,000 with costs and interest at court rates from 3rd August 2017 until payment in full and final satisfaction of the decree.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.