Kimeu v Kyunguti & 4 others; Matata & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 18 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1170 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a backroom land deal, ruling that two parties cannot use a consent judgment to cancel land titles belonging to people who were never heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Order 9 Rule 9 sanction was required for the incoming advocate
No sanction was required as there was no advocate previously on record for the Applicants and no change of advocates post-judgment
The matter had been concluded by a consent recorded on 12th July 2022 and no advocate was appearing for the 2nd to 5th Defendants or interested parties. Since Order 9 Rule 9 applies only to a change of advocates or a party previously represented deciding to act in person after judgment, the incoming firm simply needed to file a notice of appointment.
Whether the interested parties were properly on record
They were improperly on record because they never applied for joinder nor were they joined by the court
The court noted there is a clear procedure for joining a party, namely an application to court or the court's own motion. The interested parties did neither. Consequently, their participation in the application was unprocedural, as the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant had also argued.
Whether the consent judgment of 12th July 2022 should be set aside
Yes - it was set aside on grounds of collusion between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and because it was contrary to the policy of the court
Applying the KCB and NSSF authorities, the court found the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant (step-brother and step-sister) colluded to enter a consent whose effect was to affect title holders who were not party to it. The consent was recorded without a formal proof hearing in an undefended land matter, contrary to the court's policy, making it liable to be set aside.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order can only be set aside if it is shown it was obtained by fraud, collusion, an agreement contrary to the policy of the court, or where given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension of such facts
- In undefended land matters where the claim is not a liquidated claim, the case must be proved in a formal proof hearing; recording a consent that defeats non-party title holders without formal proof is contrary to the policy of the court
Court orders
#- 1.The consent judgment entered on 12th July, 2022 together with the consequential orders are set aside
- 2.The Defendants are at liberty to file their defence to the Plaintiff's claim within 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The costs of the application shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; application under Section 25 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimeu v Kyunguti & 4 others; Matata & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 18 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1170 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1170/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.