Abdula & another (Suing as joint representatives of the Estate of Ali Abdalla Ali) v Bakari (Environment and Land Case 23 of 2011) [2025] KEELC 7205 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Mombasa Environment and Land Court ordered a land buyer evicted because she missed a court-approved payment deadline and tried to change the deal terms.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Enforceability of the consent order dated 06.06.2024
The consent order is binding and must be enforced; the defendant, having failed to pay the agreed Kshs 7,000,000 within 120 days, cannot vary its terms through a third-party sale proposal.
The court recorded the consent in the presence of both counsel on 06.06.2024, under which the defendant was to purchase the suit property for Kshs 7,000,000 within 120 days. The defendant offered no lawful justification to vary, alter or repudiate the judgment. Applying KCB v Specialized Engineering, a consent order made with counsel's consent binds the parties and is not lightly set aside. Her proposal to sell at Kshs 12,000,000 sought to introduce new terms through the back door.
Entitlement to eviction and vacant possession
The plaintiffs, as registered proprietors, are entitled to vacant possession and eviction of the defendant following her breach of the consent judgment.
The defendant neither challenged the consent order nor sought to set it aside or vary it through the proper channels. Instead she introduced a third-party buyer at a higher price, a term alien to the consent. Having failed to pay the purchase price, she has no basis to remain in occupation. The plaintiffs as registered owners are within their rights to seek eviction, and the court found the eviction application merited.
Costs of the application
The plaintiffs, as successful parties, were awarded costs of the application.
Costs are discretionary but follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. A successful party should ordinarily receive costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. Finding no good reason to depart from the rule, the court awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order entered into and adopted by the court is binding on the parties and cannot be varied or discharged except by consent or on recognised grounds such as fraud, collusion, misapprehension or lack of sufficient materials.
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs absent good reason to the contrary.
Court orders
#- 1.An order for the eviction of the defendant, her servants, agents and/or any other persons in occupation from Plot No. 9091/I/MN
- 2.The Officer Commanding Station, Nyali Police Station, to provide security to court bailiffs to facilitate the eviction
- 3.Costs of the application to be borne by the defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 152F of the Land Act and Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdula & another (Suing as joint representatives of the Estate of Ali Abdalla Ali) v Bakari (Environment and Land Case 23 of 2011) [2025] KEELC 7205 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELC (application within Msa Elc No. 23 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7205/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.