Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2015] KEELC 346 (KLR)

Tilal Ole Kaura & 3 others v Barta Kaura & 3 others [2015] KEELC 346 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 June 2015
MSMunyao Sila
687 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru cancelled a secret land settlement because the person who signed it had no authority from his group ranch.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs sued the chairman, secretary and treasurer of Barkitabu Group Ranch, claiming parcel Narok CisMara/Siana 'A'/129 for Mbartan Group Ranch. The defendants, asserting the plaintiffs' title was unlawfully obtained, filed a defence and counterclaim seeking a declaration that the land belongs to them and cancellation of the plaintiffs' title. While the suit was pending, a written consent was filed on 16 December 2014 (recorded 19 December 2014) between the plaintiffs' counsel, James Ochego Onduso, and Paul Muntet, the 2nd defendant signing as Secretary of Barkitabu Group Ranch, agreeing that Mbartan Group Ranch were sole owners of the suit property and withdrawing the suit entirely. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants applied on 17 February 2015 to set the consent aside, swearing that the group ranch never met, never passed any resolution conceding the suit, and never authorised Mr. Muntet, and that their counsel on record was never informed. At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded to the application. Munyao Sila J held that Mr. Muntet lacked authority to compromise the suit to the detriment of Barkitabu Group Ranch, and criticised the advocate for dealing with Mr. Muntet in person while the defendants had counsel on record. The consent was declared a clear fraud, null and void, and was set aside together with all consequential orders; the suit was to proceed as if no consent had been filed. Costs of the application were awarded to the applicants jointly against the plaintiffs and Mr. Paul Muntet.

Key legal issues

#
01

Authority to enter a consent compromising a suit on behalf of other parties

Holding

The consent was set aside because the 2nd defendant had no authority from the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants or from Barkitabu Group Ranch, no meeting or resolution authorised the concession, and the defendants' counsel on record was bypassed.

Reasoning

The court found that the consent was recorded secretly and without consultation with the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants. The 1st defendant swore that the group ranch never met or passed any resolution conceding the suit and never authorised Mr. Muntet. The advocate for the plaintiffs, who should have known better, dealt with Mr. Muntet in person despite counsel being on record. The court deemed the consent a clear fraud, null and void, and noted the plaintiffs' counsel conceded to the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent order compromising a suit entered by a party without authority, and directly with an individual while the party had counsel on record, is a fraud and is null and void and will be set aside.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The consent together with all consequential orders are set aside
  2. 2.The suit to proceed as if no such consent was ever filed
  3. 3.The applicants shall have the costs of the application jointly as against the plaintiffs and Mr. Paul Muntet
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over its suit and consent orders recorded in it (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tilal Ole Kaura & 3 others v Barta Kaura & 3 others [2015] KEELC 346 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/346/eng@2015-06-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.