Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC No. E005 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 4347 (KLR)

Kurgat v Chepkwony & 3 others (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4347 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 July 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
471 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (Ongondo, J) concerns an originating summons dated 9th June 2025 brought by the applicant pursuant to section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22), claiming one acre out of land parcel Nandi/Kipkaren Salient/228 by way of adverse possession against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who appeared in person. On 7th July 2025 the applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents filed a consent recording that the respondents were not opposed to the applicant's claim in the estate of the late Kengu Arap Chepkwony (Deceased); that judgment be entered for the applicant in terms of prayers (a) to (f) of the originating summons; that the respondents undertake to execute completion/transfer documents whenever directed by the court; and that there be no orders as to costs against them. The court held, citing Vulcan Gases Ltd v Okunola, that the consent binds only the parties to it and constitutes a final settlement between those specific parties, and, following the Supreme Court's decision in Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General, that a consent becomes an order of the court only once formally adopted. Finding that the specific parties had voluntarily entered into, participated in and duly signed the consent, the court adopted it as an order of the court, effectively entering judgment for the applicant against the 1st and 2nd respondents with no orders as to costs against them. The 3rd respondent is not bound by the consent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the filed consent could be adopted as an order of the court

Holding

Yes; the consent, voluntarily entered into, signed and filed by the applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents, was adopted as an order of the court

Reasoning

The court noted that the parties involved voluntarily entered into, participated in and duly signed the consent. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General, the court held that a consent becomes an order of the court once formally adopted, and accordingly adopted the consent filed on 7th July 2025.

p. 3
02

The binding effect and scope of the consent

Holding

The consent binds only the applicant, the 1st and 2nd respondents and constitutes a final settlement between those specific parties

Reasoning

Citing Vulcan Gases Ltd v Okunola, the court held that the consent is binding only on the parties involved in it. It therefore compromises the claim only as against the 1st and 2nd respondents and does not affect the 3rd respondent, against whom the applicant's claim presumably remains live.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent between parties becomes an order of the court only once formally adopted by the court
  • A consent binds only the parties who are party to it and constitutes a final settlement between them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The consent dated and filed on 7th July 2025, signed by the applicant, the 1st and 2nd respondents, is adopted as an order of the court
  2. 2.Judgment entered for the applicant in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the originating summons as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, per the consent
  3. 3.No orders as to costs as against the 1st and 2nd respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22) invoked in the originating summons

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kurgat v Chepkwony & 3 others (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. E005 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4347/eng@2026-07-14

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