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 ruling· [2022] KEELC 1998 (KLR)

Benard Otieno Obunga v Lawrence Oguda Obunga [2022] KEELC 1998 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2022
GOG M A Ong'ondo
313 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

#

A Kenyan land appeal was paused so parties could settle out of court, showing courts actively support negotiated resolutions over prolonged litigation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay (G M A Ong'ondo, J) was delivered on 24 January 2022 in an appeal between Benard O. Obunga (appellant) and Lawrence O. Obunga (respondent), in lieu of a judgment scheduled for delivery that day. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Nyauke, informed the court that the parties had settled the appeal out of court and sought a further mention date to file a consent recording the settlement. Mr Oumo, holding brief for Mr Owade for the respondent, raised no objection. The court invoked Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution (justice shall not be delayed) and Article 159(2)(c) (promotion of alternative forms of dispute resolution), together with section 20 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and applied the Court of Appeal's observation in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal that litigants and their professional advisors are the best judges of their affairs. Finding the application merited, the court allowed it, fixed the appeal for mention on 2 February 2022 to confirm the application of ADR, and held the pending judgment in abeyance. No costs order was made and no determination on the merits was reached; the ruling is purely procedural.

Key legal issues

#
01

Court's facilitation of out-of-court settlement of an appeal

Holding

The court allowed counsel's prayer for a mention date to file a consent on settlement and held judgment in abeyance pending confirmation of ADR.

Reasoning

The court invoked Article 159(2)(b) that justice shall not be delayed and Article 159(2)(c) on promotion of ADR, reinforced by section 20 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and the observation in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal that litigants and their advisors are best judges of their affairs. Both counsel were agreed, and no objection was raised, so the application was merited and allowed.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • In exercising judicial authority, courts are guided by promotion of alternative forms of dispute resolution and the principle that justice shall not be delayed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application by the appellant's counsel is allowed
  2. 2.The appeal is fixed for 2nd February 2022 to confirm the application of ADR
  3. 3.Judgment is held in abeyance

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(c)
  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 20

Cases cited (1)

  • Butt versus Rent Restriction Tribunal
    (1979) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; section 20 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benard Otieno Obunga v Lawrence Oguda Obunga [2022] KEELC 1998 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1998/eng@2022-01-24

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