Spacemaster Properties Limited v Bamboo Cask Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E283 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1425 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to undo a land settlement agreement and allowed the landlord to evict the tenant in three months.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the consent order dated 20th March 2025 and adopted by the court on 25th March 2025 should be set aside
- 2.Whether the Applicant/Decree Holder is entitled to enforce the consent dated 20th March 2025 and adopted as order of court on 25th March, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the consent order dated 20th March 2025 should be set aside for mistake, misrepresentation or collusion
The application to set aside failed; the Judgement debtor did not prove fraud, collusion or lack of authority of counsel
The court noted that it was the Judgement debtor's own advocate who informed the court of the settlement and filed the consent. The debtor waited until 3rd October 2025, days before lease expiry, to challenge it, filed two other suits on the same subject adopting the same consent, and settled rent arrears. No affidavit from the erstwhile advocate supported the claim of lack of instructions, and the alleged Kshs 20 million compensation arrangement had no documentary evidence.
Whether the Decree holder is entitled to enforce the consent by evicting the Judgement debtor
Enforcement allowed, but eviction directed after three months in the interest of justice
Having declined to set aside the consent, the court held there was a decree that could be executed. It balanced this against the interest of justice by deferring the eviction for three months, effectively granting the Judgement debtor a window to vacate rather than immediate eviction.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a consent judgment except in circumstances that would justify varying or rescinding a contract, such as fraud, collusion or an agreement contrary to public policy
- In the absence of fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, consent orders stand and the court will not inquire into counsel's instructions
- Ostensible authority of an advocate to compromise cannot be upheld where consent is diametrically opposed to express client instructions, but this must be demonstrated to the court
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgement debtor's applications dated 3rd October 2025 and 13th October 2025 are disallowed
- 2.The Decree holder's application dated 14th October 2025 is allowed
- 3.The consent order dated 20th March 2025 and adopted on 25th March 2025 is not set aside
- 4.Eviction of the Judgement debtor to be effected after three (3) months of the Order
- 5.Costs to the Decree holder
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the suit and its executing decree (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the consent order entered on 20th March 2025
The Judgement debtor failed to demonstrate fraud, collusion or mistake sufficient to vitiate the consent
Setting aside ex debito justitiae of the consent order of 20th March 2025 and consequential orders
No affidavit from the erstwhile advocate supported the claim of lack of instructions; no fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation demonstrated
Alternative order of status quo in relation to LR No. 209/1245 and 209/22352
The applications premised on setting aside the consent failed
Costs
Costs to Decree holder.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I however find the Decree holder's application dated 14th October, 2025 as merited and will allow it and direct that the Judgement debtor be evicted after three (3) months of this Order.
To impeach a consent order or a consent judgment, it must be shown that it was obtained by fraud, or collusion or by an agreement contrary to the policy of Court.
I am unable to set aside the consent judgement dated the 20th March, 2025 and adopted as an Order of Court on the 25th March, 2025.
Costs to Decree holder.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of motion dated 13th October 2025 is described as seeking 'similar orders as in its application dated 3rd October 2024' although the earlier application is dated 3rd October 2025 - an apparent internal date inconsistency
The suit's case number is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Spacemaster Properties Limited v Bamboo Cask Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E283 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1425/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.