Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in extract· [2019] KEELC 3158 (KLR)

Samuel Kaimenyi Anampiu & 3 others v County Government of Kajiado & another [2019] KEELC 3158 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 May 2019
1,214 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Settle a Kenyan land dispute by consent without costs terms and you may still end up paying the other side's legal bills.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (Christine Ochieng, J) deals solely with costs as between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Plaintiffs had sued on 10th May 2016 seeking a declaration that Plot 160 is held by the 1st Defendant in trust for Police Sacco residents for a nursery school, and a permanent injunction restraining construction of sub-county offices on the plot, together with costs. The Defendants filed appearance but neither responded to the Plaintiffs' urgent injunctive application nor filed defences. On 9th July 2018 the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant recorded a consent under which the 1st Defendant accepted it would not utilise the suit land and would undertake wider consultations before doing so. The parties failed to agree on costs, which the court then determined on submissions. The 1st Defendant argued costs are discretionary, citing several authorities; the Plaintiffs cited two of the same cases. Applying section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event, and following ORIX Oil and Morgan Air Cargo (where costs were awarded to a plaintiff whose suit was compromised by consent), the court found the Plaintiffs were the successful party because the consent effectively granted the relief sought and no defences were filed. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs, to be taxed before the Deputy Registrar and borne by both Defendants equally. The court noted the suit as against the 2nd Defendant remains pending, the consent having compromised only the dispute with the 1st Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to costs where the suit was compromised by consent

Holding

The Plaintiffs were the successful party and are entitled to costs payable by both Defendants equally.

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs sued for a declaration and injunction over Plot 160. The 1st Defendant entered a consent agreeing not to utilise the suit land and to consult widely if it intended to, effectively granting the Plaintiffs the relief sought. The 2nd Defendant never filed a defence. Applying section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event, and following Morgan Air Cargo, the court held the Plaintiffs successful and awarded costs.

p. 2
02

Effect of the consent on the suit

Holding

The consent between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant compromised the suit, though the suit against the 2nd Defendant remains pending.

Reasoning

The court observed that the 2nd Defendant did not participate in the consent, but the parties had attended court severally before it was recorded; the consent therefore disposed of the dispute as between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant, leaving only the question of costs for determination.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a suit is compromised by consent that grants the plaintiff the substance of its prayers, the plaintiff is the successful party and costs follow the event.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs
  2. 2.Costs to be taxed before the Deputy Registrar and borne by both Defendants equally
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (discretion over costs)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Kaimenyi Anampiu & 3 others v County Government of Kajiado & another [2019] KEELC 3158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3158/eng@2019-05-20

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