Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt (application dated 18/2/2019)· [2019] KEELC 3836 (KLR)

Edith Matiba (Suing as legal representative to the Estate of Wamere Hellen Mwangi Dadet) v David Njogu Gachanja [2019] KEELC 3836 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 March 2019
KBK. BOR
327 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

#

The Environment and Land Court amended its decree to clearly state which Ruiru plots each party owns, splitting four plots between the two sides.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By an application dated 18 February 2019, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that she was entitled to parcels Ruiru/Ruiru East/Block 7/81 and Ruiru/Ruiru East/Block 7/82 and to any compensation payable by the Kenya National Highways Authority for those plots. The application followed the court's judgment of 11 November 2018, in which the Plaintiff was found entitled to two plots of the suit land and the Defendant to the other two. The Plaintiff also complained that the Defendant had entered into a sale transaction with a third party over Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/3 and that there were significant developments on Block 7/154. In his replying affidavit sworn on 18 March 2019, the Defendant admitted at paragraph 10 that he wished to sell Blocks 7/3, 7/81 and 7/82 to Viktah Maina, and that the proposed purchaser of Block 7/154 had agreed to buy knowing the history of Varsityville and the pendency of the suit. Considering the application, the affidavits and its earlier judgment, the court held that the decree required amendment for clarity and certainty. It directed that the decree be amended to reflect that the Plaintiff is entitled to Blocks 7/81 and 7/82, while the Defendant retains Blocks 7/154 and 7/3. No separate order was made on the KeNHA compensation funds. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the application. Dated and delivered at Nairobi on 28 March 2019 by K. Bor, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Amendment of the decree to identify the plots awarded to each party

Holding

The decree was amended to award the Plaintiff Blocks 7/81 and 7/82 and to leave the Defendant with Blocks 7/154 and 7/3

Reasoning

The court considered the application, the supporting affidavit, and the Defendant's replying affidavit in which he admitted wishing to sell the very plots claimed by the Plaintiff and another plot to a purchaser aware of the suit. Against the judgment of 11/11/2018, which found each party entitled to two plots, the court held the amendment necessary for clarity and certainty of the decree and directed the allocation accordingly.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may amend its decree for clarity and certainty to align it with its judgment on entitlement to specific parcels

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The decree is amended to reflect that the Plaintiff is entitled to plot numbers Ruiru/Ruiru East/Block 7/81 and Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/82
  2. 2.The Defendant retains parcel numbers Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/154 and Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/3
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; Environment and Land Court seized of the suit and consequential application

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edith Matiba (Suing as legal representative to the Estate of Wamere Hellen Mwangi Dadet) v David Njogu Gachanja [2019] KEELC 3836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the excerpt (application dated 18/2/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3836/eng@2019-03-28

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