Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 1358 (KLR)

Joan Musundi Wafula & another v Jane Rose Sakina Nduguyu [2019] KEELC 1358 (KLR)

Not expressly named in the judgment (land dispute heard at Kitale)
9 October 2019
MNMwangi Njoroge
802 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kitale court refused to make anyone pay legal costs in a stepmother-versus-stepchildren land dispute, protecting fragile family relationships.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This document, styled a judgment but in substance a costs ruling, arises from a suit filed on 4/5/2017 in which the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, their step-mother, held Title No. Kitale Municipality Block 17/Bidii/816 in trust for them, the land having devolved to her from their late father. They sought injunction and declaratory orders. The defendant denied the claim, asserting that the land was registered in her name in 2014 when the plaintiffs were adults and that their father could have registered it in their names had he wished. Pleadings expanded to include a dispute over whether the defendant's earlier marriage to Pius Peter Kiplangat Boit had been dissolved before her marriage to the plaintiffs' father; the plaintiffs produced a decree absolute dated 18/4/2013 in Kitale High Court Divorce Cause No. 7 of 2011. The record shows the main suit was withdrawn on 7/10/2019. What remained for determination was costs. The judge, invoking Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, held that the dispute was of a family nature, observed that the family is the building block of the community and the nation, and reasoned that an award of costs against either party could further strain already stretched family bonds, including effects on kin not party to the suit. He therefore ordered that each party bear their own costs. The ruling was delivered at Kitale on 9 October 2019, with the defendant absent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs should follow the event in this family land dispute

Holding

No. Exercising the discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs because the matter is of a family nature and an adverse costs order could further strain family bonds.

Reasoning

The court observed that the parties are related - the defendant is step-mother to the plaintiffs - and that the plaintiffs had lived with the defendant for some time. Noting that the family is the building block of the community and the nation, the judge held that applying measures that reduce acrimony in a family setting was appropriate, and that costs against either party would have deleterious effects extending even to kin not named as parties.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs are in the discretion of the court under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and in family disputes the court may for good reason order each party to bear their own costs so as not to worsen family acrimony

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27(1) and (2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; the court exercises its discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act on costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joan Musundi Wafula & another v Jane Rose Sakina Nduguyu [2019] KEELC 1358 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1358/eng@2019-10-09

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