1. The plaintiffs through Rotich, Langat and Partners Advocates sued the defendant by the way of an originating Summons dated 14th October 2025 claiming to have an interest in land reference number Nandi/Serem/610 for the principal orders infra;
a) A declaration that the rights and title of the said Shadrack Kipkemboi Tanui (Being sued as the administrator of the Estate of the late Kiptarus Butia Alias Kiptarus S/O Butia-Deceased) - Defendant over land parcel No. Nandi/Serem/610 (The suit property herein) has been extinguished by operations of the law of Adverse Possession and statute barred.
b) A declaration that the Plaintiffs have acquired freehold interest in land over a portion measuring 6.0 Acres of the suit property by their adverse possession thereof for a period of more than 12 years which is from 1970 to date.
c) An order requiring and directing the land registrar Nandi County to remove the entries relating to the title of the Defendant and in lieu thereof register the Plaintiff as the new registered owner over the suit property.
2. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs claim to have taken actual and physical possession over a portion measuring 6.0 Acres of the suit property since 1970 while raising their children on the portion That the Plaintiffs have had continued, notorious occupation of the said portion of the suit property; which occupation has been peaceful, actual physical occupation and possession of the said portion of the suit property continuously, uninterrupted from 1970 date nec vi, nec clam and nec precario which is a period of over 12 years hence, precipitating this suit.
3. On 23rd October 2025, Mr Moses Rotich for the plaintiffs and Mr V Kiprono alongside Mr Nyagaka learned counsel for the defendant agreed to have the matter referred to CAM-Court Annexed Mediation for possible settlement. The court made reference accordingly in consonant with Article 159 (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Civil Procedure (Court Annexed Mediation) Rules 2022.
4. It is important to note the consent dated 28th July 2026 by learned counsel for the respective parties herein and it reads;
”(a) The subject matter Nandi/Serem/610 be subdivided into two portions measuring 4.712 Acres and 11.165 Acres in tandem with the sketch survey map dated 26th May 2026 attached to this consent.
(b) The portion marked Á ‘4.712 Acres be registered in the name of ROBAI MALAKWEN while the reminder portion marked ‘B’11.165 Acres be distributed to the estate of KIPTARUS BUTIA alias KIPTARUS S/O BUTIA (Deceased) in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. E144 of 2024.
(c ) This matter be marked as settled with no orders as to costs.”
5. Mr Rotich learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged the court to enter judgment in terms of the said consent in this suit.
6. Mr Serem learned counsel for the defendant affirmed the proposal by the plaintiffs’counsel.
7. In the foregone, the issues for determination pertain to the respective parties’ title to the suit property and whether the consent has settled the issues in present dispute.
8. It is worth to note that the parties voluntarily entered into the duly signed consent. They fully participated in reaching the same.
9. In the case of Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others vs Attorney General {2020} KESC 62 (KLR), the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya remarked;
‘.....Thus, a consent by parties becomes an order of the court only once it has been formally adopted by the court............’
10. Furthermore, it must be observed that the parties entered into the consent in the spirit of Article 159 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that justice shall not be delayed and alternative forms of dispute resolution including mediation respectively.
11. In the premises, my considered view is that the parties have resolved all the issues in the instant dispute in terms of the consent.
12. Accordingly, the consent dated 28th July 2026 set out in paragraph 4 (a) (b) and (c ) hereinabove is hereby adopted as the judgment of the court in the instant suit.
13. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at KAPSABET this 28th day of JULY, 2026.
G M A ONGONDO
JUDGE
Present;
Mr Rotich learned counsel for the plaintiffs
Mr Serem learned counsel for the defendant
Mr Walter and Emma, Court Assistants
a) A declaration that the rights and title of the said Shadrack Kipkemboi Tanui (Being sued as the administrator of the Estate of the late Kiptarus Butia Alias Kiptarus S/O Butia-Deceased) - Defendant over land parcel No. Nandi/Serem/610 (The suit property herein) has been extinguished by operations of the law of Adverse Possession and statute barred.
b) A declaration that the Plaintiffs have acquired freehold interest in land over a portion measuring 6.0 Acres of the suit property by their adverse possession thereof for a period of more than 12 years which is from 1970 to date.
c) An order requiring and directing the land registrar Nandi County to remove the entries relating to the title of the Defendant and in lieu thereof register the Plaintiff as the new registered owner over the suit property.
2. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs claim to have taken actual and physical possession over a portion measuring 6.0 Acres of the suit property since 1970 while raising their children on the portion That the Plaintiffs have had continued, notorious occupation of the said portion of the suit property; which occupation has been peaceful, actual physical occupation and possession of the said portion of the suit property continuously, uninterrupted from 1970 date nec vi, nec clam and nec precario which is a period of over 12 years hence, precipitating this suit.
3. On 23rd October 2025, Mr Moses Rotich for the plaintiffs and Mr V Kiprono alongside Mr Nyagaka learned counsel for the defendant agreed to have the matter referred to CAM-Court Annexed Mediation for possible settlement. The court made reference accordingly in consonant with Article 159 (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Civil Procedure (Court Annexed Mediation) Rules 2022.
4. It is important to note the consent dated 28th July 2026 by learned counsel for the respective parties herein and it reads;
”(a) The subject matter Nandi/Serem/610 be subdivided into two portions measuring 4.712 Acres and 11.165 Acres in tandem with the sketch survey map dated 26th May 2026 attached to this consent.
(b) The portion marked Á ‘4.712 Acres be registered in the name of ROBAI MALAKWEN while the reminder portion marked ‘B’11.165 Acres be distributed to the estate of KIPTARUS BUTIA alias KIPTARUS S/O BUTIA (Deceased) in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. E144 of 2024.
(c ) This matter be marked as settled with no orders as to costs.”
5. Mr Rotich learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged the court to enter judgment in terms of the said consent in this suit.
6. Mr Serem learned counsel for the defendant affirmed the proposal by the plaintiffs’counsel.
7. In the foregone, the issues for determination pertain to the respective parties’ title to the suit property and whether the consent has settled the issues in present dispute.
8. It is worth to note that the parties voluntarily entered into the duly signed consent. They fully participated in reaching the same.
9. In the case of Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others vs Attorney General {2020} KESC 62 (KLR), the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya remarked;
‘.....Thus, a consent by parties becomes an order of the court only once it has been formally adopted by the court............’
10. Furthermore, it must be observed that the parties entered into the consent in the spirit of Article 159 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that justice shall not be delayed and alternative forms of dispute resolution including mediation respectively.
11. In the premises, my considered view is that the parties have resolved all the issues in the instant dispute in terms of the consent.
12. Accordingly, the consent dated 28th July 2026 set out in paragraph 4 (a) (b) and (c ) hereinabove is hereby adopted as the judgment of the court in the instant suit.
13. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at KAPSABET this 28th day of JULY, 2026.
G M A ONGONDO
JUDGE
Present;
Mr Rotich learned counsel for the plaintiffs
Mr Serem learned counsel for the defendant
Mr Walter and Emma, Court Assistants