[2018] KEELC 3168 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3168 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order of 12th June 2008, which provided for the equal apportionment of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 between the Plaintiff and Defendant, effectively settled the main prayers in the Plaintiff's claim. Both parties were registered as proprietors of their respective portions, and the Plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3168 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sienya Oluoch; Defendant: Julius Ochola Ojunga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 381 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; suit marked as settled in terms of the consent order with costs to the Plaintiff.
Judges
TM Olando
Legal Topics
Land Subdivision, Consent Orders, Title Cancellation, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Subdivision Consent Orders Title Cancellation Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sienya Oluoch

Plaintiff

Julius Ochola Ojunga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the subdivision of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 by the Defendant was illegal and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the resultant titles Kisumu/Nyalunya/3391, 3390, and 3389 should be cancelled and reverted to Kisumu/Nyalunya/222.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs and general damages for trespass and fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order of 12th June 2008, which provided for the equal apportionment of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 between the Plaintiff and Defendant, effectively settled the main prayers in the Plaintiff's claim. Both parties were registered as proprietors of their respective portions, and the Plaintiff's entitlement to costs was affirmed as he had succeeded in his main claim. The Plaintiff was deemed to have abandoned the claim for general damages, and the only remaining issue was the award of costs. The court allowed the Plaintiff's application to mark the matter as settled with costs, in accordance with the consent order and Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; suit marked as settled in terms of the consent order with costs to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The application dated 28th August 2013 is allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2 with costs.
  • The suit is marked settled in terms of the consent entered on 12th June 2008, with costs to the Plaintiff.