Paul Kimisik Murei & 2 others v Alice Jemutai Too & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. M. Kibunja
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Paul Kimisik Murei & 2 others v Alice Jemutai Too & another [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Paul Kimisik Murei & Others v. Alice Jemutai Too & Another
- Case Number: E & L CASE NO. 125 OF 2014
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 28th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. M. Kibunja
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving two central legal issues:
(a) Whether the 1st Defendant made a reasonable case for varying the order of 30th January 2020.
(b) Who should bear the costs of the application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved in this case are the Plaintiffs, Paul Kimisik Murei, Emily Jeptarus Murgor, and Mary Nyaboke Anchinga, and the Defendants, Alice Jemutai Too and the Chief Land Registrar of Uasin Gishu County. The case arose from a dispute over land boundaries, where the 1st Defendant, Alice Jemutai Too, was accused of encroaching on the Plaintiffs’ land. A consent order was previously entered into on 28th January 2020, which required the placement of beacons to demarcate the land boundaries. The 1st Defendant filed a motion on 16th September 2020, seeking to vary this order to protect her house from being affected by the beacon placement.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Environment and Land Court, where a consent order was agreed upon by all parties on 28th January 2020. The 1st Defendant’s motion filed on 16th September 2020 sought to suspend the beacon placement and vary the existing order. The Plaintiffs opposed this motion, arguing that the 1st Defendant had not demonstrated grounds for altering the consent order. The court maintained the status quo pending further orders and ultimately addressed the motion in its ruling delivered on 28th October 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the principles governing the variation of consent orders, which stipulate that such orders can only be set aside if procured through fraud, non-disclosure of material facts, or mistake. The relevant statute referenced is the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya.
- Case Law: The court did not cite specific precedent cases, but it relied on established legal principles regarding consent orders and the need for a party seeking to vary such an order to demonstrate sufficient grounds.
- Application: The court found that the 1st Defendant had not provided adequate grounds for varying the consent order, as she was aware of the encroachment when the order was agreed upon. The court reasoned that the 1st Defendant’s claims regarding her age and health did not constitute valid grounds to excuse her from the obligations of the consent order. Ultimately, the court ruled that the motion was without merit and dismissed it, awarding costs to the Plaintiffs.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the 1st Defendant's motion to vary the consent order, holding that she failed to demonstrate any grounds for such a variation. This ruling underscored the binding nature of consent orders and the necessity for parties to adhere to agreements made in court.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling, as the decision was unanimous.

8. Summary:
The court dismissed the 1st Defendant's motion to vary a consent order regarding land boundary demarcation, emphasizing the importance of honoring court agreements. The decision highlights the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of consent orders and the necessity for parties to negotiate and communicate effectively to avoid disputes. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal obligations stemming from consent agreements in land disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Paul-Kimisik-Murei--2-others-v-Alice-Jemutai-Too--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2546_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries