Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Billhouse Investments Limited v Tanui (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7683 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
483 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant by plaint dated 20th October 2025 seeking, inter alia, an order of eviction from land parcel Nandi/Kipkaren Salient/952, and simultaneously filed a notice of motion under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 seeking an interim injunction over the suit land. The Defendant entered appearance through George O. Anyumba and Company Advocates. When the matter came before the court, counsel for the Plaintiff drew attention to a consent dated 28th October 2025 signed by counsel for both parties and urged the court to adopt it as judgment; counsel for the Defendant, Mr M.C. Ouma instructed by Mr Anyumba, affirmed the position and asked the court to approve the consent. The court framed the sole issue as whether the Plaintiff was deserving of the orders sought in the plaint and contained in the consent, noting it was common ground that the consent be endorsed as judgment. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Geofirey Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General {2020} KESC 62 (KLR), the court held that litigants should not be denied the opportunity to explore Alternative Dispute Resolution under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and are at liberty to consent to terms of settlement. The court approved the consent and entered judgment for the Plaintiff, issuing an order of eviction against the Defendant and those claiming through her within 7 days, failing which forceful eviction would be carried out, a permanent injunction against trespass, directed the OCS Kipkaren Salient Police Station to ensure compliance, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. Judgment was delivered at Kapsabet on 6th November 2025 by Hon. G M A Ongondo, Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Plaintiff is deserving of the orders sought in the plaint and contained in the consent
  2. 2.Whether the consent dated 28th October 2025 should be adopted as judgment of the court

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a consent between the parties may be adopted as judgment of the court

Holding

The court endorsed the consent as judgment, holding that parties should not be denied the opportunity to settle by ADR under Article 159(2)(c)

Reasoning

Both counsel urged the court to adopt the consent dated 28th October 2025. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Geofirey Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General, the court held that litigants may explore ADR and consent to terms of settlement, and applauded the parties for settling in the spirit of Article 159(2)(c).

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Litigants should not be denied the opportunity to explore Alternative Dispute Resolution under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and are at liberty to consent to terms of settlement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant approving the consent of both parties
  2. 2.An order of eviction issued against the Defendant, her agents, servants and anybody claiming through her, from suit parcel Nandi/Kipkaren Salient/952 within 7 days, failing which forceful eviction shall be carried out
  3. 3.An order of permanent injunction issued against the Defendant, her agents, servants and anybody claiming through her, from trespassing upon parcel Nandi/Kipkaren Salient/952 belonging to the Plaintiff
  4. 4.The OCS Kipkaren Salient Police Station to ensure full compliance
  5. 5.Each party to bear own costs

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; settlement adopted under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

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.

I therefore, hereby enter judgment for the plaintifi against the defendant as I approve the consent of both parties and this matter be settled in the following terms
Adoption of consent as judgment
a. An order of eviction be and is hereby issued against the Defendant, her agents, servants and anybody claiming through her from suit parcel of land number Nandi/kipkaren Salient/952 within 7 days failure of which forceful eviction shall be carried out.
p. 2Final orders - eviction
That each party shall bear own costs.
p. 2Costs
litigants should not be denied an opportunity to explore Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) under Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
p. 2ADR under Article 159(2)(c)

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment does not state the case number, names of the parties, or a neutral citation; parties are referred to only as Plaintiff and Defendant

minor

Internal date inconsistency: memorandum of appearance dated 27th October 2027, a date in the future relative to the plaint and judgment

minor

Recurring typographical errors rendering 'Plaintiff' as 'Plaintifi' and 'Geoffrey' as 'Geofirey'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Billhouse Investments Limited v Tanui (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7683/eng@2025-11-06

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