Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherOriginating Summons (suit number not stated in judgment)· [2018] KEELC 4394 (KLR)

Danson Miano Kangangi v Njogu Ncekebu & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4394 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land jurisdiction), Chuka
28 February 2018
PNP.M. Njoroge
568 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner's adverse possession claim ended when his advocate withdrew the suit after his death, and the defendants got their costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Danson Miano Kangangi, filed an Originating Summons under Order XXXVI rule 3D of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, claiming to have acquired 8 acres of the suit lands LR Nos. Magumoni/Itugururu/1997, 2000, 2001 and 2003 by adverse possession since 1990. He sought a declaration that he had obtained title by adverse possession and an order that he be registered as proprietor, plus costs. The matter came up for directions on 28th February 2018, by which time the plaintiff had died in October 2017. Counsel for the defendants, Mr. Njeru Ithiga, informed the court that the plaintiff's advocate, Mr. Ondari, had indicated he did not wish to have the plaintiff substituted and had written to the Deputy Registrar seeking to withdraw the suit with no order as to costs. Mr. Ithiga was not opposed to withdrawal provided costs were awarded to the defendants. The court held that an advocate is the agent of his principal and is presumed to act on instructions, and that there was no point clogging the court system where the plaintiff had expressed a wish to withdraw; the letter of withdrawal predated the death by about four months. It marked the suit as withdrawn against the defendants and, exercising its judicial discretion on costs, awarded costs to the defendants. The adverse possession claim was therefore never determined on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a suit may be marked as withdrawn on the basis of an advocate's letter intimating withdrawal

Holding

Yes; the court found the withdrawal meritorious since the letter predated the plaintiff's death and the advocate is presumed to act on his client's instructions

Reasoning

The letter intimating withdrawal was filed four months before the plaintiff's death. The defendants' advocate was not opposed to withdrawal provided costs were granted. The court held there was no point clogging the court system where the plaintiff had expressed his wish to withdraw, treating the advocate's act as that of a duly instructed agent.

p. 2
02

Whether costs should follow the withdrawal in favour of the defendants

Holding

Yes; costs were awarded to the defendants in the court's judicial discretion, as they had opposed withdrawal only on costs

Reasoning

The discretion on costs is judicial, not capricious. The defendants, through counsel, were not opposed to withdrawal provided costs were awarded to them. In the circumstances the court exercised its discretion to award the defendants their costs of the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate is the agent of his principal and is presumed to act with the instructions of his client
  • Award of costs is at the discretion of the court, to be exercised judicially and not capriciously

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This suit is marked as withdrawn
  2. 2.Costs are awarded to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XXXVI rule 3D(1)(2) and (3)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38
Jurisdiction invoked
Order XXXVI r 3D(1)(2) and (3) CPR and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (originating summons for adverse possession)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Danson Miano Kangangi v Njogu Ncekebu & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Originating Summons (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4394/eng@2018-02-28

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