Kurgat v Chepkwony & 3 others (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4347 (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 consent filed on 7th July 2025 by the applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents should be adopted as an order of the court
- 2.Whether the consent constitutes a final settlement binding the parties to it
Key legal issues
#Whether the filed consent could be adopted as an order of the court
Yes; the consent, voluntarily entered into, signed and filed by the applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents, was adopted as an order of the court
The court noted that the parties involved voluntarily entered into, participated in and duly signed the consent. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General, the court held that a consent becomes an order of the court once formally adopted, and accordingly adopted the consent filed on 7th July 2025.
The binding effect and scope of the consent
The consent binds only the applicant, the 1st and 2nd respondents and constitutes a final settlement between those specific parties
Citing Vulcan Gases Ltd v Okunola, the court held that the consent is binding only on the parties involved in it. It therefore compromises the claim only as against the 1st and 2nd respondents and does not affect the 3rd respondent, against whom the applicant's claim presumably remains live.
Legal principles established
#- A consent between parties becomes an order of the court only once formally adopted by the court
- A consent binds only the parties who are party to it and constitutes a final settlement between them
Court orders
#- 1.The consent dated and filed on 7th July 2025, signed by the applicant, the 1st and 2nd respondents, is adopted as an order of the court
- 2.Judgment entered for the applicant in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the originating summons as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, per the consent
- 3.No orders as to costs as against the 1st and 2nd respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22) invoked in the originating summons
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, a consent by parties becomes an order of the court only once it has been formally adopted by the court............'
In the premises, the consent duly signed by the applicant, the 1 st and 2nd respondents and filed on 7th July 2025 as stated in paragraph 4 hereinabove, is hereby adopted accordingly.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Memorandum of appearance dated '1st July 2027' precedes the judgment date of 14th July 2026 – apparent typographical error
Consent reproduced in the ruling states 'judgment he entered' instead of 'be entered' – typographical error in the quoted consent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kurgat v Chepkwony & 3 others (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. E005 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4347/eng@2026-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.