Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherHoma Bay ELC OS No. E008 of 2023

Akelo & 3 others v Oranga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6522 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 October 2024
GOGeorge M. A. Ongondo
643 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land ownership fight over adverse possession ended not with a court ruling, but with a mediated deal the court made binding as its judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs brought an originating summons dated 20th April 2023 under sections 17, 18, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act claiming title to the suit land, Central Kasipul/Kamuma/59 measuring approximately 3.6 hectares, by adverse possession. The defendant, through a forty-two paragraph replying affidavit sworn on 29th May 2023, denied the claim and disclosed prior attempts to resolve the dispute before the area chief concerning the 2nd plaintiff's occupation. The hearing had reached an advanced stage, with seven plaintiff witnesses and two defence witnesses having testified. On 9th July 2024, both counsel informed the court that the parties had opted to explore Court Annexed Mediation, and the court referred the suit to CAM under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and the CAM Rules 2022. A settlement agreement dated 12th September 2024, signed by the parties and witnessed by Mediator Roselyn A Okal and Co-Mediator Jane A Ayola, was produced. It provided that new title deeds would be processed from January 2025 at the defendant's cost, that four persons currently tilling part of the land would use it on lease until the end of 2025, and that four acres be given to the defendant, excluding any homesteads or graveyards associated with the 2nd plaintiff and family. Both counsel urged the court to adopt the agreement as judgment. The court adopted the settlement in entirety and entered judgment in its terms, with each party bearing its own costs. No adverse possession finding was made; the suit was disposed of consensually.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Has the settlement agreement disposed of the suit?
  2. 2.Who shall bear the costs of the suit?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court Annexed Mediation settlement agreement disposed of the adverse possession suit

Holding

Yes; the court adopted the settlement agreement in entirety as its judgment.

Reasoning

The parties, through their respective counsel, consented to the adoption of the settlement agreement dated 12th September 2024, signed before the Mediator Roselyn A Okal and Co-Mediator Jane A Ayola. The court referred the suit to CAM under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and the CAM Rules 2022, and counsel for both sides jointly urged adoption as judgment.

p. 2
02

Costs of the suit

Holding

Each party to bear their own costs.

Reasoning

Having entered judgment by consent in terms of the mediated settlement, the court exercised its discretion on costs in favour of neither party, ordering that the parties bear their own costs of the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A settlement agreement arrived at through Court Annexed Mediation may be adopted in entirety as the judgment of the court and enforced as such.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The settlement agreement dated 12th September 2024 be and is hereby adopted as the judgment of the court
  2. 2.Judgment is entered in terms of the settlement agreement produced through the CAM mechanism as set out in paragraph 8 (a), (b), (c) and (d)
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 17, 18, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22); Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Court Annexed Mediation Rules 2022 for adoption of the settlement

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.

Thus, judgment is hereby entered in terms of the settlement agreement produced through the CAM mechanism as stated in paragraph 8 (a) (b) (c) and (d) hereinabove.
p. 2Adoption of CAM settlement as judgment
The parties to bear their own costs of this suit.
p. 2Costs order
It is common ground that the settlement agreement be adopted in entirety as the judgment of this court. In the premises, the settlement agreement, be and is hereby adopted accordingly.
p. 2Consent adoption of settlement

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment inconsistently attributes counsel: paragraph 4 describes Ms Kivindu as 'learned counsel for the defendant' and Mr Muma as 'learned counsel for the plaintiffs', while elsewhere Ms Kivindu appears for the plaintiffs and Mr Muma for the defendant.

minor

Typographical error in the judgment referring to 'he settlement agreement'.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Akelo & 3 others v Oranga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6522 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Homa Bay ELC OS No. E008 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6522/eng@2024-10-07

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