Susan Tirindi M’miriti & 4 others v Gladys Nkuene & 5 others [2019] KEELC 2581 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court spared feuding family members from paying each other's legal costs after a withdrawn land case, prioritising family reconciliation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient reasons existed for review of the costs order under Order 45 rule 1
The court found sufficient reasons for review, principally the close family relationship between the parties, which was unrebutted.
Order 45 rule 1 permits review for any other sufficient reason. The issue of costs had not been addressed when the notice of withdrawal was endorsed; costs were requested by the defendants' counsel. The applicants' account of the family ties was not rebutted by the respondents, and condemning family members to pay costs would breed further acrimony. Costs discretion under Section 27(1) CPA allows departure from the 'costs follow the event' rule for good reason, and the parties' relationship and reconciliation are relevant factors.
Discretion on costs under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
The court exercised its discretion to order each party to bear own costs notwithstanding the withdrawal of the suit.
Section 27(1) vests full discretion in the court on costs, with costs following the event only unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. Guided by the cited authorities, the court considered the family relationship, the circumstances that led to the suit (fear of disinheritance through a succession cause), and the likely consequences of a costs order on family harmony.
Legal principles established
#- In exercising discretion on costs the court may consider the conduct of the parties, the subject of litigation, the circumstances leading to the suit, the events at termination, the relationship between the parties and the need to promote reconciliation under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution
- The exercise of the court's discretion on costs must be anchored on facts
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, otherwise orders
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4.7.2018 is allowed
- 2.The suit remains as withdrawn pursuant to the notice of 10.4.2017
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of this suit and of the present application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction); Section 27(1) Civil Procedure Act on costs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Susan Tirindi M’miriti & 4 others v Gladys Nkuene & 5 others [2019] KEELC 2581 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Meru ELC Case (suit concerning Abogeta/U-Kithangari/481) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2581/eng@2019-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.