[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sienya Oluoch
Plaintiff
Julius Ochola Ojunga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the subdivision of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 by the Defendant was illegal and unlawful.
- 2 Whether the resultant titles Kisumu/Nyalunya/3391, 3390, and 3389 should be cancelled and reverted to Kisumu/Nyalunya/222.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISUMU
ELC. 381 OF 2015[FORMERLYHCCC 123 OF 2006]
SIENYA OLUOCH.............................PALINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS OCHOLA OJUNGA........DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. Sienya Oluoch, the Plaintiff, through M/s Mwamu, Nyanga & Company Advocates, sued Julius Ochola Ojunga, the Defendant, through the plaint dated 1st May 2006, seeking for the following;
a) “A declaration that the Defendant subdivision of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 into three parcels was illegal and unlawful.
b) That the title namely Kisumu/Nyalunya/3391, 3390 and 3389 be cancelled and reverted to Kisumu/Nyalunya/222.
c) General damages for trespass and fraud to land parcel No. Kisumu/Nyalunya/222.
d) Costs and interest.”
2. The Defendant filed his statement of defence in person dated 22nd January 2007 among others averring that the Plaintiff is only entitled to 0. 15 hectares from Kisumu/Nyalunya/222. That by notice of appointment dated 30th April 2007, M/s D.O.E Anyul & Co. Advocates came on record for the Defendant.
3. That the parties entered a consent of 12th June 2008 under which the land parcel Kisumu/Nyalunya/222 was to be resurveyed with a view of apportioning it into two equal portions. That the Plaintiff was to take the upper part and the Defendant the lower part. That the record shows that the consent was carried out with the Plaintiff being registered with Kisumu/Nyalunya/3477 and Defendant 3478 each measuring 0. 95 hectares. The Plaintiff paid the required fees alone. That on the 11th December 2008, the Court directed the Defendant to refund the Plaintiff Kshs. 7750/= being half the fee incurred. The refund was reported to have been made during the subsequent mention of 6th February 2009. That during the mention of 13th February 2009, the Court was informed that the Defendant had stopped ploughing the disputed portion. There has been two unsuccessful attempts by the Defendant to challenge the consent order.
4. The Plaintiff then filed the notice of motion dated 28th August 2013 on the 17th September 2013, seeking for the following;
1. “That the matter be marked as settled with costs to the Plaintiff.
2. That the costs of this application be granted to the Plaintiff.
3. That in the alternative, judgment be entered for the Plaintiff with costs.”
The Defendant opposed the application through the grounds of opposition dated 10th October 2013. The Court gave directions for filing and exchanging written submissions but only the Counsel for the Plaintiff filed theirs dated 23rd March 2015 on the 30th June 2017.
5. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings filed by both parties, the record, especially the consent order of 12th June 2008, the grounds on the application, grounds of opposition, affidavit evidence, written submissions by Counsel for the Plaintiff and come to the following conclusions;
a) That the parties have through the consent of 12th June 2008 to share the land equally effectively settled the main prayers in the Plaintiff’s claim. That both parties shared the surveyor’s expenses and each has been registered with their half share of Kisumu/Nyalunya/222. The Plaintiff got Kisumu/Nyalunya/3477 while the Defendant got 3478.
b) That what remains to be settled is the issue of costs and general damages. The Plaintiff is only seeking for costs and is taken to have abandoned the claim for general damages. That as the Plaintiff has succeeded in his main claim, he is entitled to costs in accordance with Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of Laws of Kenya.
c) That the Court finds merit in the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 28th August 2013, and filed on the 17th September 2013.
6. That following from the foregoing, the Court enters judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms;
a) That the application dated 28th August 2013 be and is hereby allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2 with costs.
b) That the suit herein be and is hereby marked settled in terms of the consent entered on the 12th June 2008, with costs to the Plaintiff.
Orders accordingly.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2018
In the presence of:
Plaintiff Absent
Defendant Absent
Counsel N/A
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE