Benard Otieno Obunga v Lawrence Oguda Obunga [2022] KEELC 2002 (KLR)

The bottom line

Two brothers settled their land dispute out of court, and the Homa Bay Environment and Land Court endorsed their agreement to withdraw the case with nobody paying the other's legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#

The plaintiff, Benard Otieno Obunga, sued by originating summons dated 25th May 2016 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that he had acquired LR. No. East Kanyada/Kayadier/3465 through adverse possession against the defendant, Lawrence Oguda Obunga. The claim was never heard on the merits. On 13th January 2022, counsel for both parties filed a consent dated 10th January 2022 recording that the suit be marked as withdrawn and that there be no orders as to costs. On 24th January 2022, Mr. Nyauke for the plaintiff and counsel holding brief for the defendant confirmed the consent and urged the court to adopt it. G.M.A Ong'ondo J adopted the consent, invoking Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution and the decision in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal (1979) eKLR on the court's role in facilitating consensual resolution of disputes. The court ordered that the suit be marked as withdrawn and that there be no order as to costs. The declaration of adverse possession sought was therefore never determined; the suit ended by withdrawal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment is a short procedural ruling on consent adoption rather than an adjudication of the adverse possession claim.

Key legal issues

#

01

Adoption of a consent to withdraw a suit

Holding

The court adopted the parties' consent that the suit be marked as withdrawn with no order as to costs

Reasoning

Counsel for both parties filed and confirmed a consent dated 10th January 2022 that the suit be marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs. The court, invoking Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal decision, adopted the consent, it being in the spirit of promoting alternative and expeditious resolution of disputes.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

Courts may adopt consents between parties in furtherance of expeditious dispute resolution under Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution

Court orders

#

1.The instant suit is marked as withdrawn
2.There be no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

Butt -versus- Rent Restriction Tribunal
(1979) eKLR

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Related briefs

#

Small ClaimsPartially Allowed2026-12-31

Shiret v Mureithi & another (Commercial Case E696 of 2025) [2026] SCC 187 (KLR)

A lender suing to recover Kshs. 298,500 lost in Kenya's Small Claims Court because her paperwork didn't prove the loan, and was ordered to pay Kshs. 93,800.60 back instead.

ELCPartially Allowed2026-10-08

Francis Kagumba Gitonga & Another t/a Markton Bulk Suppliers v Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & Others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Proposed 4th Defendant/Applicant)

ELCDismissed2026-10-08

Stephen Otieno Owino, Joyce Nyakero and George Kimutai (Suing as the officials and members of Yasego Society) v Meron Limited & another

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a society's third attempt to stop eviction, ruling the matter was already decided and compensation claims remain open.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benard Otieno Obunga v Lawrence Oguda Obunga [2022] KEELC 2002 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Originating Summons dated 25th May 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2002/eng@2022-01-24

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