Hussein Mohammed Ali Harazi v Elias Yeri & 8 Others
The bottom line
#The court refused to undo a land settlement its lawyer agreed to, confirming that consent orders bind clients unless fraud or mistake is proven.
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 firm of Ruttoh & Associates Advocates should come on record for the Applicants
- 2.Whether the orders of 30.9.25 should be set aside
- 3.Whether taxation and execution should be arrested
Key legal issues
#Change of advocates after judgment
The incoming firm was allowed to come on record as there was no opposition by the Respondent
Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a court order for a change of advocates after judgment. Since the Respondent did not oppose that limb, the court permitted Ruttoh Erica & Associates Advocates to come on record for the 1st to 9th Defendants.
Setting aside a consent order entered with counsel's consent
The consent order of 30 September 2025 was not set aside; the applicants failed to demonstrate a vitiating factor
Relying on Florah N. Wasike v Destimo Wamboko and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Specialized Engineering Co Ltd, the court held that consents entered by counsel bind clients, an advocate has implied authority to compromise, and lack of instructions is a matter between litigant and advocate. Delay was not an issue here (one month), but no sufficient reason to set aside was shown.
Arrest of taxation and stay of execution
Refused; taxation and execution follow naturally from the concluded suit
The consent adoption concluded the matter, with the suit marked settled in terms of the joint survey report and costs to the Plaintiffs. Having declined to set aside the consent, the court found no good reason to arrest taxation or stay execution, describing them as logical processes upon conclusion of a suit.
Legal principles established
#- A consent judgment or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds that would justify setting aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake, misrepresentation or illegality
- A consent entered by counsel is binding and cannot be set aside unless obtained by fraud, collusion, contrary to public policy or given in ignorance of material facts
- Boundary disputes fall within the statutory jurisdiction of the Land Registrar under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, in line with the exhaustion doctrine
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of Ruttoh Erica & Associates Advocates allowed to come on record for the 1st to 9th Defendants/Applicants
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 10 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Setting aside the orders issued on 30th September 2025
The consent order was entered with counsel's consent; no sufficient reason to set it aside was shown
Arresting taxation of the Bill of Costs and/or staying execution
Taxation and execution are logical processes upon conclusion of a suit; no good reason to arrest them
Order for another joint survey of plot No. 273 Malindi
Application dismissed in its entirety with costs
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
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.
a consent judgment /order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds that would justify setting aside a contract (such as fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, illegality or similar vitiating factors).
an advocate generally has implied authority to compromise a suit on behalf of his client and a complaint that an advocate did not have instructions and cannot form the basis for setting aside a consent as this is a matter purely between and litigant and his advocate.
It is therefore not left to litigants to choose whether or not their boundary disputes will be determined by the Land Registrar.
The upshot is that the application lacks merit and it is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date appears to be a typographical error
Plaintiff referred to in singular and plural inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hussein Mohammed Ali Harazi v Elias Yeri & 8 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E060 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6110/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.