Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther· [2017] KEELC 2079 (KLR)

Justus Muruja Musa v Festus M’metha Njau [2017] KEELC 2079 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
19 July 2017
PNP. M. Njoroge
731 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

#

Two Tharaka-Nithi land dispute parties settled their procedural differences by consent, so the High Court at Chuka made no decision on the disputed land itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the High Court at Chuka (P. M. Njoroge, J) deals with an interlocutory notice of motion dated 15.6.2017 by the plaintiff, Justus Muruja Musa, concerning three land parcels, L.R. Nos. MUTHAMBI/L. KANDUNGU/1338, 1339 and 990. The plaintiff sought certification as urgent, orders of inhibition against registration of any dealings over the suit lands, and temporary injunctions restraining the defendant and those claiming through him from entering, trespassing, evicting or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's possession, occupation and use, pending inter-partes hearing and pending hearing of the suit, plus costs. The application was supported by an affidavit raising allegations of fraudulent registration of the lands to the defendant on 28.01.2014 before the outcome of an appeal to the Minister on 10.05.2017, long occupation by the plaintiff and his family since 1970 and 1986, and a threat of forcible eviction causing irreparable harm. On 19.7.2017 the parties entered consents which the court adopted as its orders: the defendant's replying affidavit of 18.7.2017 and defence of 19.7.2017 (including a counterclaim) were deemed properly filed; the application dated 15.6.2017 was to be determined by written submissions; the plaintiff was granted 14 days to file a further affidavit and reply to the defence and counterclaim. The court deemed the application settled and determined, directed compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days, and made no substantive findings or costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption of consents and consensual case-management directions

Holding

The court adopted both consents of 19.7.2017 as orders, deeming the replying affidavit and defence properly filed and directing determination of the application by written submissions

Reasoning

The parties, by consent, asked the court to deem the defendant's replying affidavit and defence as duly filed, to dispose of the interlocutory application by written submissions, and to allow the plaintiff time to file a further affidavit and reply. The court, exercising its case-management discretion, adopted both consents as orders of the court and directed compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • By consent of the parties, the court may adopt a consent recording agreed directions as its own order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The consent dated 19.7.2017 is adopted as an order of this court
  2. 2.The parties' 2nd consent dated 19/7/2017 is adopted as an order of this court
  3. 3.The application dated 15.6.2017 filed by the plaintiff is deemed settled and determined
  4. 4.Parties to fully comply with order 11, Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days of today

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; civil suit and interlocutory application under the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Justus Muruja Musa v Festus M’metha Njau [2017] KEELC 2079 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2079/eng@2017-07-19

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