Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC Case No 65 of 2012· [2017] KEELC 226 (KLR)

David Muriuki Kiugu v Alex Mureithi Naaman [2017] KEELC 226 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 October 2017
LML. N. Mbugua
217 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Two neighbours settled a land boundary fight out of court, and the Kenyan judge approved their agreement and made everyone pay their own costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a consent disposition in an Environment and Land Court boundary dispute at Meru between David Muriuki Kiugu (plaintiff) and Alex Mureithi Naaman (defendant), being ELC Case No 65 of 2012. On 4 October 2017 the parties, through their advocates, proffered a consent which they asked the Court to adopt as its order. By that consent, judgment was entered in terms of the report of the District Surveyor dated 10 November 2015, which directed that there be a straight-line boundary touching the existing fenced boundary shared by parcels No. 3301 and 6281, joining the boundary between parcels 3301 and 3568 and extended straight to the road as per the map. The consent further recorded that the application dated 30 October 2015 was spent in terms of Prayers 1 and 2, and that the plaint was spent in terms of Prayers a, b and c. The consent reserved the question of costs of both the suit and the application for the Court to determine on the basis of submissions already filed, and the suit was marked as settled. In the final orders, the Court held that the parties shall bear their own costs, and it was so ordered. The judgment was delivered in open court at Meru on 4 October 2017, with Mutuma appearing for the defendant and Waigwa for the plaintiff, before Hon. L. N. Mbugua, ELC Judge. The brief notes minor data-quality limitations, as the judgment does not recite the underlying pleadings or reliefs sought.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption of a consent judgment in a land boundary dispute

Holding

The Court adopted the parties' consent, entering judgment in terms of the District Surveyor's report dated 10 November 2015, which fixed a straight-line boundary between parcels 3301 and 6281 extending to the road

Reasoning

The advocates and parties jointly proffered a consent asking the Court to adopt it as its order. The consent provided that judgment be entered in terms of the surveyor's report defining the boundary. The Court, sitting as it must over disputes touching land boundaries, adopted the consent, marked the application and the plaint spent in the specified terms, and recorded the suit as settled, leaving only costs for determination.

p. 2
02

Costs following a consent settlement

Holding

Despite the consent directing the Court to determine costs on the basis of submissions already filed, the Court ordered that parties bear their own costs

Reasoning

The consent itself reserved the question of costs for the Court to determine, having regard to submissions already on file. After considering the matter, the Court opted not to award costs to either side, reflecting the consensual, settlement character of the disposition of the suit and the application of 30 October 2015.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent entered into by parties and proffered to the Court may be adopted as an order of the Court, binding them accordingly

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Adoption of the parties' consent as an order of the Court, entering judgment in terms of the report of the District Surveyor dated 10 November 2015, that there be a straight line boundary touching the existing fenced boundary shared by parcels No. 3301 and 6281 and joining the boundary between 3301 and 3568 extended straight to the road as per the Map
  2. 2.The application dated 30 October 2015 marked spent in terms of Prayers 1 and 2
  3. 3.The plaint marked spent in terms of Prayers a, b and c
  4. 4.Suit marked as settled
  5. 5.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act (implied; the judgment does not state a provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Muriuki Kiugu v Alex Mureithi Naaman [2017] KEELC 226 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC Case No 65 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/226/eng@2017-10-04

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