Ndabibi Farmers Company Ltd v Agricultural Development Corporation & 15 others (Environment & Land Case 84 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2024] KEELC 5472 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to undo an earlier consent order but froze the situation so KFA members can keep farming until the ownership dispute is fully decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the consent order in Naivasha CM ELC Case No. E004 of 2022 could be set aside
The application to set aside was denied; no nexus between the consent order's subject properties and the current suit was shown, and no fraud, collusion or misapprehension of material facts was established.
The court applied the settled principles in Brooke Bond Liebig v Mallya and Munyiri v Ndungunya that consent orders are binding unless vitiated by fraud, collusion, illegality, mistake or ignorance of material facts. The consent related to L.R 6233 (1856/1) and L.R 7281, properties unrelated to parcel 1695 in the present suit, and no vitiating circumstances were demonstrated.
Whether the Applicant was entitled to an order of status quo over parcel No. 1695
A defined status quo order was granted: the Applicant's members to continue farming on parcels LR 1695/5, 1695/8-12 and 1695/18 without dealing with them adversely, and the Respondents not to interfere, until final determination.
Relying on Mugah v Kunga and Practice Direction No. 28(k) vide Gazette Notice No. 5178/2014, the court held that status quo orders preserve the subject matter in land disputes. There being no contestation by the Respondents, the court interfered in a limited manner by clearly defining the status quo to prevent prejudice to any party.
Whether the Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the consent order
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A do not confer jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought, as they deal with the objective of the Act, the duty of the court and inherent powers respectively; inherent power cannot be invoked where rules provide a procedure.
The court noted the application was anchored on Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which do not confer substantive jurisdiction. Citing Bosire J in Muchiri v Attorney General and the Mumias Outgrowers decision, it held that inherent jurisdiction arises only where no clear provisions anchor the relief or where applying the rules would work an injustice.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order is binding and can only be varied or set aside on grounds such as fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to the policy of the court, or absence/misapprehension of material facts.
- In land matters, status quo orders should be issued for purposes of preserving the subject matter.
- The inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked where the rules have provided the procedure to be followed.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo issued to be maintained by all the parties in that the Applicants' members shall continue to farm on parcels No LR 1695/5, 1695/8-12 and 1695/18 but not to deal with them adversely.
- 2.There shall be no interfering with parcels registration No LR 1695/5, 1695/8-12 and 1695/18 by the Respondents.
- 3.Such status quo is to be maintained by all parties until the matter is finally heard and determined.
- 4.The cost of the application dated the 7th November, 2023 shall be in the cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndabibi Farmers Company Ltd v Agricultural Development Corporation & 15 others (Environment & Land Case 84 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2024] KEELC 5472 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Naivasha ELC (unnumbered in judgment; arising from suit re parcel No. 1695). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5472/eng@2024-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.