Murunga & another v Shikhutuli (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7301 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court refused to overturn a land dispute consent order, confirming such agreements can only be undone for fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence.
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 applicant has met the threshold for grant of orders of review
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant met the threshold for review of the consent order of 20 February 2025
The application failed; none of the review grounds was established and the consent order could not be disturbed absent fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence.
The applicant's sole ground was economic hardship as a farmer with crops needing tending. This was within his knowledge at the time of the order, so no new matter or mistake existed. No supporting affidavit evidenced the crops. Further, the order of 20/02/2025 was made by consent of both counsel, and a consent order is a contract that cannot be set aside absent fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence, none of which was shown.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order is contractual in nature and cannot be set aside unless fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence is demonstrated.
- Review is restricted to the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 - discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason - and must be sought without unreasonable delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 20th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff/respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Review, variation or setting aside of the orders of 20th February 2025 to allow the defendant to tend crops and plant maize on the suit land
None of the grounds for review under section 80 CPA/Order 45 was demonstrated; the order was a consent order not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue influence; no supporting affidavit evidenced the crops
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs/respondents.
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.
Therefore, none of the elements for review has been demonstrated by the applicant.
It is trite that a consent order is a contract and unless fraud, misrepresentation, duress or undue infiuence is demonstrated, the same cannot be set aside.
The upshot is that I find no merit in the application dated 20th March 2025, which I dismiss with costs to the plaintifis/respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Defendant's actual name is not stated in the judgment; the applicant is referred to only as 'the defendant/applicant'.
Recurring typographical errors ('efiect', 'afidavit', 'suficient', 'plaintifis') in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murunga & another v Shikhutuli (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7301 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th March 2025 (suit property dispute, Kakamega). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7301/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.