REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU ELC CASE NO 65 OF 2012 DAVID MURIUKI KIUGU.........................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ALEX MUREITHI NAAMAN................................DEFENDANT CONSENT/ORDER 1. On 04:10:17, the advocates and the parties in this matter proffered the following Consent, which they asked the Court to adopt as it's order. "By Consent, Judgment is hereby entered in terms of the report of District Surveyor dated 10:11:15 in the following terms:That therebe a straight line boundary touching line boundary touching the existing fenced boundary shared by parcel No. 3301 and 6281 and join the boundary between 3301 and 3568 and extended straight to the road as per the Map” 2. The application dated 30:10:15 is spent, in terms of Prayer 1 and 2. 3. The Plaint is spent in terms of Prayer a, b, and c. 4. The Court to determine the costs of the suit as well as the costs of the application of 30:10:15. 5. The Court to rely on Submission already filed in determining the issue of costs. Suit marked as settled. 6. Parties shall bear their own costs. 7. It is so ordered. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF:C.A: Janet Mutuma for defendant present Waigwa for Plaintiff present HON. L. N. MBUGUA ELC JUDGE
Original judgment
David Muriuki Kiugu v Alex Mureithi Naaman [2017] KEELC 226 (KLR)
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.