Kitur & another v Land Registrar, Nandi County (Environment & Land Case 100 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1034 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Ex Parte Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2023 seeking execution of the consent order adopted on 15th November 2021 is meritorious
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants are entitled to execute the consent order adopted by the court on 15th November 2021
The application was allowed in terms of the survey/subdivision and security orders
The court held that the applicants intend to have the consent order executed and that section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act governs questions arising in execution of a decree. Relying on Shahmad v Shamji Bros, the court found the applicants have a vested right to the consent order which ought to be effectual. The consent order has neither been varied nor set aside, no appeal or stay is pending, and the respondent, though duly served, filed no response. The applicants were therefore entitled to the principal prayers in the interest of justice.
Legal principles established
#- A party has a vested right to a consent order, which ought to be effectual, and such an order stands unless varied or set aside.
Court orders
#- 1.The County Surveyor, Nandi County ordered and directed to survey so as to subdivide parcel Nandi/mutwot/210 into three (3) portions of 16 Ares, 13.5 Acres and 10 Acres for transmission to Philip Kiprop Kitur, Kitur Arap Misoi (now Deceased) and Cheruiyot Kitur respectively
- 2.An order directing the OCS, Mosoriot Police Station to provide security during the survey and sub-division of the land and affirm the applicants' possession and occupation during the exercise
- 3.Costs of the application be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3B and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya (execution of decree/consent order)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application provided for against the respondent
The court ordered costs to be in the cause rather than awarding them to the applicants
Costs
Costs of the application be in the cause.
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.
The applicants have a vested right to the consent order which ought to be efiectual; see also Shahmadvs-Shamji Bros and another (1957) EA 438.
In the instant case, the consent order has neither been varied nor set aside.
Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought therein as set out in paragraph 1 (b) and (c) hereinabove.
Costs of the application be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the parties and the case number do not appear in the judgment as provided; the respondent is referred to only as 'the defendant/respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kitur & another v Land Registrar, Nandi County (Environment & Land Case 100 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1034 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1034/eng@2025-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.