Sile & another (Suing on behalf and as administrators of the Estate of Stephen Baron Sisimwo) v Moss (Being sued on behalf of and as administrator of the Estate of Daniel Chepnoi Naibei Moss) (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 18737 (KLR) (30 July 2025) (Consent) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18737 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E004 OF 2024 CK NZILI, J JULY 30, 2025 BETWEEN SISIMWO SILAS SILE .......................................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF DAVID SISIMWO STEPHEN ............................................................. 2ND PLAINTIFF SUING ON BEHALF AND AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN BARON SISIMWO AND SUSAN MOSS (BEING SUED ON BEHALF OF AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL CHEPNOI NAIBEI MOSS) ..................... DEFENDANT CONSENT 1. The Constitution of Kenya provides that the court must promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. When the parties appeared before me on 18/6/2025, learned counsels on record told the court that, even though they had substantially agreed to compromise the suit, they had contemplated that there could be a conict, hence the application dated 17/6/2025, seeking: 1. An order that a joint survey be conducted in the presence of both parties or their representatives on L.R No. 1948/10 and or L.R No. Endebess/Endebess Block 4/Koitobos, to establish the occupancy of 125 acres by the plainti. 2. An order for the surveyor(s) to point out, establish and or x beacons securing the 125 acres out of Endebess Block 4/Koitobos occupied by the plaintis. (c) 2. Parties be at liberty to call and involve their independent surveyors during the exercise. The grounds are set out on the face of the application and in a supporting adavit sworn by Mutuma Meja on 17/6/2025, attaching the draft consents by the plaintis and the defendant marked MM-1 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18737/eng@2025-07-30 1
page 1 of 2
and MM-2. Briey, the deponent conrms that parties had threshed out the main issues and that to rule out a disparity and future conicts, there is need for the intended survey exercise, to point out the beacons, x them and or identify the actual and accurate boundaries on the ground between the parties. 3. Further, it is deposed that the exercise is driven by the need for due diligence, to put an end to this endless dispute, which has been on for decades. The applicant deposes that this is the reason the two versions are being shared with the court; otherwise, there will be no prejudice to any party if the orders are granted. It appears that after a ruling date was issued on 18/6/2025, parties proceeded to execute a consent that was uploaded on the case management system dated 30/6/2025. 4. The court is now asked to mark the application dated 17/6/2025 as withdrawn with no orders as to costs. Parties appear to have agreed on the joint survey exercise, among other 7 issues in the consent. Further, the court is asked to adopt the consent as a decree. 5. The court has looked at the plaint dated 30/1/2024 and the statement of defence dated 21/2/2024. 6. As a general rule, an order obtained by the consent of the parties is binding. It has a contractual eect. It is meant to be the formal result and an expression of an agreement already arrived at by the parties to the proceedings. Courts are duty-bound to encourage parties to attempt out-of-court negotiation and if they so agree, adopt the same as an order of the court. This is the spirit behind Article 159(3) (c) of the Constitution. 7. The consent before the court is signed by the lawyers representing the parties. Lawyers have the general authority to compromise suits on behalf of their clients. See Guzzini & Another -vs- Tinga & Others, Civil Appeal No. E047 of 2021 [2024] KECA 493 [KLR] (26th April 2024) (Judgment). 8. The upshot is that I adopt the consent dated 30/6/2025 as a judgment of this court. A decree to that eect shall issue. 9. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025. In the presence of: Court Assistant – Dennis Barongo for the plainti present Mutuma for the defendant present HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18737/eng@2025-07-30 2
page 2 of 2