Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 4099 (KLR)

Cross Country Ventures Limited v Nairobi City County (Environment & Land Case 86 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4099 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 May 2025
COChristine Ochieng
1,743 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Nairobi's Environment and Land Court refused to undo a land settlement agreement, ruling that a party cannot escape a consent decree without proving fraud or collusion.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 sought review and setting aside of a consent decree dated 26th April 2024, pursuant to a consent recorded on 16th February 2024 and adopted as an order of court on 29th February 2024. The consent declared the Plaintiff the lawful owner of Land Parcel No. LR 209/5945, granted it exclusive possession and liberty to remove padlocks on the front gate, with each party bearing its own costs. Through its Acting County Solicitor, Wasonga Ogolla, the Defendant contended that its erstwhile advocates, Musyoki Mogaka & Company Advocates, acted without instructions and that the consent was fraudulent and would result in loss of ownership of the suit property. The Plaintiff opposed, asserting that an advocate of record has general authority to compromise a suit, that the advocates had obtained instructions and given a legal opinion advising settlement, and that the Defendant had admitted in its pleadings the Plaintiff's registered ownership and continued issuing rates demand notes. The court framed a single issue: whether the consent decree should be reviewed and/or set aside. Applying the settled principles in Board of Trustees NSSF v Michael Mwalo, Guzzini v Tinga and Patriotic Guards Ltd v Sambu, the court held that a consent judgment can be impeached only on grounds of fraud, collusion or an agreement contrary to public policy, and that a court does not inquire into counsel's instructions absent such vitiating factors. The court found no fraud or collusion demonstrated, noted the legal opinion advising settlement, and dismissed the application with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the consent decree dated 26th April 2024 should be reviewed and/or set aside on the ground of want of instructions/fraud

Holding

The application was dismissed; the Defendant failed to prove fraud, collusion or mistake in the entry of the consent, and the erstwhile advocates had advised settlement by legal opinion before the consent was recorded

Reasoning

The court applied the settled principles that a consent judgment may be impeached only on grounds justifying rescission of a contract, namely fraud, collusion or an agreement contrary to public policy. On the record, the parties and their advocates had agreed to resolve the matter amicably, the erstwhile advocates had issued a legal opinion recommending settlement, and the deponent did not demonstrate fraud or collusion. The Defendant's witness statement also admitted the Plaintiff's ownership of the suit land.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not interfere with a consent judgment except in circumstances such as would provide good ground for varying or rescinding a contract; it must be shown the consent was obtained by fraud, collusion or an agreement contrary to the policy of the court
  • A court is not obligated to inquire into the terms on which counsel is instructed; absent fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, consent orders stand

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th February 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent review and setting-aside jurisdiction over consent decrees under civil procedure; the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional or statutory provision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cross Country Ventures Limited v Nairobi City County (Environment & Land Case 86 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4099 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4099/eng@2025-05-22

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