Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Abdikadir & 121 others (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 5111 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Withdrawing a lawsuit doesn't unlock money held under a consent agreement—its release conditions must still be met.
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 Applicants' notice of motion is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit against the Applicants entitled them to immediate release of the monies in the joint account
No. The withdrawal terminated the proceedings against those Defendants but did not extinguish or vary the contractual obligations in the consent, which remain binding until fully performed, varied or discharged.
The court held that a consent order is both a court order and a binding contract. The Notice of Withdrawal dated 2nd October 2025 ended the litigation against the Applicants but did not discharge the consent dated 13th September 2023. Outstanding matters - the unresolved boundary dispute over Parcel Kajiado/Purko/156 and the non-invocation of Clause 7 - meant the conditions precedent to release had not been satisfied or waived, so no enforceable right to immediate release arose.
Whether the mandatory orders sought could issue given the disputed state of the parties' entitlement
No. Mandatory relief requires a clear and undisputed legal entitlement; the disputes over fulfilment of the consent conditions go to the heart of the agreement, and ordering release would amount to rewriting the consent.
Relying by analogy on the principles governing mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage (Kenya Breweries v Okeyo), the court found the Applicants' entitlement was not free from controversy. The parties disputed whether the conditions were fulfilled, whether the deposits were final compensation, and whether the contractual mechanism for determining compensation had been exhausted. Directing release would rewrite rather than enforce the consent. Equitable considerations cannot override express contractual obligations.
Legal principles established
#- A consent judgment or order has dual character as an order of the court and a binding contract, and can only be set aside on grounds justifying setting aside a contract or where unfulfilled conditions remain
- Where a consent prescribes conditions precedent to the release of monies held in a joint account, the court cannot dispense with those conditions merely because a party finds them inconvenient
- Mandatory relief should only issue where the applicant demonstrates a clear and undisputed legal entitlement
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd March 2026 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit; application under the consent dated 13th September 2023 filed in court
Relief refused
#Order directing the Manager, Equity Bank (K) Limited, Parliament Road Branch to release the sums held in the joint interest-earning account to the 9th, 11th, 27th and 28th Defendants
The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the conditions governing release of funds under the consent dated 13th September 2023 were satisfied or lawfully dispensed with; withdrawal of the suit did not alone entitle them to immediate release
Costs of the application
The Court dismissed the application but declined to award costs
Costs
Application dismissed with no orders as to costs
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 find that the Notice of Motion dated 23rd March 2026 is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed but with no orders as to costs.
The Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the conditions governing release of the funds under the consent dated 13th September 2023 have been satisfied or lawfully dispensed with. Consequently, they have not established a clear legal right to the mandatory orders sought.
It is now settled law that a consent judgment or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting aside a contract, or if certain conditions remain to be fulfilled, which are not carried out.
that withdrawal did not, in itself, extinguish or vary the contractual obligations embodied in the consent dated 13th September 2023. The consent remains binding upon the parties until fully performed, varied by agreement, or otherwise discharged in accordance with the law.
Courts do not make contracts for parties; they merely enforce them.
courts are enjoined to uphold the sanctity of contracts and should not rewrite agreements merely because they appear harsh or onerous to one of the parties.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Abdikadir & 121 others (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 5111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC/E030/2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5111/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.