David Mungiria Mwango v District Adjudication & Demercation Officers Tigania West & 5 others [2018] KEELC 2352 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

18 July 2018

LMLUCY N. MBUGUA

423 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court ruled that abandoning a land case after seven years of inaction means the withdrawing party must pay the other side's legal costs.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Meru, delivered by Hon. Lucy N. Mbugua, ELC Judge, deals solely with the question of costs after the petition was withdrawn on 16 May 2018. The parties could not agree on costs and the court directed submissions. The petitioner, whose suit was filed on 7 June 2011, argued that the case never took off because some parties died and that withdrawal was necessitated by the subject matter changing in form, such that the withdrawal should not be treated as a win for either side; counsel relied on Republic vs Rosemary Wairimu Munene (J.R No. 6 of 2014) to urge the court's discretion on costs. The respondents countered that the petitioner took no steps to prosecute the suit, that the court had at times threatened dismissal, and that their advocate's many attendances merited costs. Examining the file, the court found that after filing in 2011 nothing happened for two years until a mention in 2013, another mention followed two years later in 2015 when the court threatened dismissal, and the threat was repeated on 23 November 2016. Concluding that the petitioner had dragged the respondents to court and allowed the matter to mark time for some seven years, the court held that blame lay with the petitioners and ordered them to pay the respondents' costs. The judgment rests on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, under which costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders.

Key legal issues

Whether costs should follow the event upon withdrawal of a long-dormant suit

Holding

Costs were awarded to the respondents because the petitioner's inaction caused the suit to languish for about seven years

Reasoning

The court exercised its discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Despite the petitioner's argument that withdrawal was due to the subject matter changing form and not a victory for either side, the court reviewed the file and found the petitioner had taken no steps to prosecute the suit for years, with the court even threatening dismissal. The blame for the delay lay with the petitioner, so costs followed the event in favour of the respondents.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Costs of and incidental to suits are in the discretion of the court and follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders

Court orders

1.The petitioners to pay costs of this suit to the Respondents

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure ActSection 27

Cases cited (1)

J.R No. 6 of 2014 – Republic vs Rosemary Wairimu Munene

Jurisdiction invoked: Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (discretion as to costs)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Mungiria Mwango v District Adjudication & Demercation Officers Tigania West & 5 others [2018] KEELC 2352 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (filed 7.6.2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2352/eng@2018-07-18

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