AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherConstitutional Petition (Environment and Land Court, Nairobi)· [2021] KEELC 3475 (KLR)
Kenafric Manufacturers Ltd & 2 others (All Suing as members of the Poly Propylene ( PPP) Non-woven Manufactures Division of the Kenya Association of Manufacturers) v Kenya Bureau of Standards & 2 others [2021] KEELC 3475 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Three petitioners, members of the Poly Propylene (PPP) Non-Woven Manufacturers Division of the Kenya Association of Manufacturers, filed a constitutional petition on 29th March 2019 challenging a Notice published on 19th March 2019 by the 2nd Respondent (NEMA) banning the manufacture, importation, supply and use of non-woven bags with effect from 31st March 2019, following the earlier ban of plastic bags vide Gazette Notices No. 2334 and 2356. The petition, filed in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court, was certified urgent and a temporary injunction issued pending inter partes hearing on 4th April 2019. The matter was transferred to the Environment and Land Court. The 2nd Respondent filed no response to the petition or the Notice of Motion, and by June 2019 indicated instructions to settle; a consent was agreed on all terms except costs, leaving only the question of costs for determination. The petitioners argued they had made numerous appearances and prepared a comprehensive petition; the 2nd Respondent contended the suit was public interest litigation settled early and should attract no costs. Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Supermarine Handling Services Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority, the court held that costs are discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Given the absence of opposition, the prompt settlement, and that similar matters (Mega Plastics, Elogical Green Ltd, Peter Wanjohi, IASTA) were settled with no order as to costs, the court declined to award costs and marked the matter as settled with no order as to costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether costs should be granted to the petitioners
Holding
No order as to costs; the court declined to award costs given the public interest nature of the petition, the absence of opposition, and prompt settlement
Reasoning
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests costs in the court's discretion, to be exercised judiciously. The petition was public interest litigation, the 2nd Respondent filed no response and promptly sought settlement, and appearances were only to adopt the consent. Comparable petitions and judicial review applications by other manufacturers were settled with no order as to costs, making it fair to deny costs.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- Costs are in the discretion of the court and must be exercised judiciously; public interest litigation settled without opposition may attract no order as to costs
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is marked as settled with no order as to costs; no costs awarded to the petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional Petition originally filed in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court and transferred to the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenafric Manufacturers Ltd & 2 others (All Suing as members of the Poly Propylene ( PPP) Non-woven Manufactures Division of the Kenya Association of Manufacturers) v Kenya Bureau of Standards & 2 others [2021] KEELC 3475 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Constitutional Petition (Environment and Land Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3475/eng@2021-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.