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 text· [2021] KEELC 1921 (KLR)

Paul Kibet Laboso & 3 others v New Gatundu Mixed Farmers & another [2021] KEELC 1921 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 September 2021
MOM.C. Oundo
1,999 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court ordered a seller to transfer 930 acres to farmers' groups within 30 days, ruling that consent orders must be obeyed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, farmers' groups, purchased 930 acres from the 1st Defendant out of parcel LR No. Narok-CIS Mara/Ololulunga/349. When the 1st Defendant failed to transfer the land, having allegedly sold part to the 2nd Defendant, the Applicants sued in 2007 seeking permanent injunction and specific performance. The parties recorded a consent on 21st November 2011, adopted as a court order on 13th December 2011, requiring excision and registration of 930 acres in the name of Ndakisal Farmers Group, with the 1st Defendant to pay the District Surveyor. The suit was later dismissed for want of prosecution in 2014 and reinstated in 2020. The Applicants then filed the Notice of Motion dated 20th October 2020 seeking enforcement of the consent: transfer of the land, an additional 40.02 acres or market-value compensation for the deficit found on survey (the parcel measured 889.98 acres), and refund of Kshs. 47,620/= survey fees they were forced to pay. Neither Respondent filed a response or submissions despite leave and directions. Justice M.C. Oundo held the consent orders binding unless vacated or set aside, found no fraud or collusion, noted the Respondents' deliberate delay in denying the Applicants the fruits of their judgment, and applied the principle that court orders are compulsive and peremptory. The application was allowed with costs; the Respondents were directed to comply with the consent orders of 13th December 2011 within 30 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enforcement of a consent order for transfer of land

Holding

The consent order of 13th December 2011 remains valid and binding and must be complied with, including transfer of the suit property, within 30 days

Reasoning

The court found the consent unchallenged: no party vacated it, no competent appeal was filed, and no fraud or collusion was shown. The 1st Respondent filed no response or submissions and did not controvert the Applicants' factual claims. The Respondents' non-compliance and delay denied the Applicants the fruits of their judgment, warranting compulsion to comply with the consent terms.

p. 3
02

Compensation for acreage deficit and refund of survey costs

Holding

The 1st Respondent should make good the deficit of 40.02 acres (or its current market value) and refund Kshs. 47,620/= paid to the District Surveyor, as part of compliance with the consent order

Reasoning

The surveyor's report of 10th August 2020 showed the parcel measured 889.98 acres against the agreed 930 acres, a deficit of 40.02 acres. The consent order required the 1st Defendant to pay the District Surveyor; his failure forced the Applicants to pay Kshs. 47,620/=. Since the application was uncontroverted, these claims were allowed within the 30-day compliance window.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Consent orders are binding on all parties unless vacated, set aside on review or overturned on appeal
  • Court orders are compulsory and peremptory and must be obeyed regardless of a party's status

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders of 13th December 2011 are to be complied with within the next 30 days in the terms granted by the court
  2. 2.The application dated 20th October 2020 is allowed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17 Rule 2

Cases cited (2)

  • Fred Matiang'i, The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government vs Miguna Miguna & 4 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ex-Parte George Kariuki Waithaka
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Paul Kibet Laboso & 3 others v New Gatundu Mixed Farmers & another [2021] KEELC 1921 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1921/eng@2021-09-28

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