Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (ELC, Kitale)· [2022] KEELC 352 (KLR)

Organics 4 Orphans International v Thrive for Good Foundation & 16 others [2022] KEELC 352 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 April 2022
3,913 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered two individuals to personally pay everyone's legal costs for filing a lawsuit they had no authority to start.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (F. Nyagaka, J) determined who should bear the costs of a suit in which both the Plaintiff company and the Defendants wished to discontinue proceedings. The suit had been instituted on 23/01/2020 through Ms. Kraido & Company Advocates on the instructions of Boaz Oduor Ogollah and Douglas Kinaibei. A power struggle for control of the Plaintiff followed, with rival firms claiming to act for the company. Earlier rulings of 13/02/2020 and 25/02/2021 found the instructing individuals had been terminated and lacked authority to direct the litigation; a consent to withdraw the suit was subsequently entered by counsel properly on record. When Kraido & Company sought to cease acting, the parties asked that the firm and its instructing clients be condemned to pay costs. The court held that the 'event' for costs purposes was the successful removal of a wrongly-instituted suit: the Defendants were sued without authority and both innocent parties had always intended to discontinue. Since Ogollah and Kinaibei acted without authority and in defiance of subsisting orders of other courts, and since under agency law their advocates' acts bound them as principals, the two individuals were ordered to personally pay the costs of both the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The suit was marked wholly discontinued and Kraido's application of 07/07/2021 was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

What constitutes 'the event' for purposes of costs

Holding

The event is the result of the entire litigation; here the Defendants succeeded in getting a wrongly-instituted suit discontinued, so costs follow that event

Reasoning

The court adopted Kuloba's definition of 'the event' as the result of the whole litigation, which may be decided by withdrawal or compromise. Since the suit was discontinued by valid consent of counsel properly on record and the initiators were found to lack authority, the Defendants were the successful parties entitled to costs.

p. 4
02

Whether former advocates and their instructing clients should bear the costs

Holding

Yes - Boaz Oduor Ogollah and Douglas Kinaibei, having instructed counsel without authority and in defiance of subsisting orders, must personally pay the costs of both sides

Reasoning

The two individuals had been terminated and barred from interfering with the Plaintiff's affairs yet held themselves out as officials and instructed the suit. Their counsel knew this and persisted in contempt of other courts' orders. As principals of the firm under agency law, they must bear all costs incurred.

p. 5
03

Whether the suit was effectively withdrawn

Holding

Yes - the consent to withdraw entered by counsel properly on record was effective, so the suit stood discontinued

Reasoning

Once Kraido & Company ceased acting and M.M. Kimuli & Company were deemed properly on record with instructions, the consent discontinuing the suit was valid whether or not formally recorded. Kraido's argument that the suit was neither dismissed nor withdrawn was rejected.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason decides otherwise, and the court may order a party to pay costs to any extent
  • An agent's acts bind the principal; the instructing individuals are personally liable for costs incurred through unauthorized litigation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 07/07/2021 and filed on 08/07/2021 is marked as struck out with costs to the respondents
  2. 2.The suit is marked as wholly discontinued
  3. 3.Boaz Oduor Ogollah and Douglas Kinaibei shall personally meet the costs of the Plaintiff and the Defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Organics 4 Orphans International & 3 others v Boaz Oduor Ogollah & 2 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Organics 4 Orphans International v Thrive for Good Foundation & 16 Others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Organic 4 Orphans International v Thrive for Good Foundation & 9 Others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Organics 4 Orphans International & 3 others v Boaz Oduor Ogollah & 2 Others
    [2021] eKLR
  • MILIMANI HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION MISC. APPLICATION NO. E0828 OF 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent discretion over costs)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Organics 4 Orphans International v Thrive for Good Foundation & 16 others [2022] KEELC 352 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (ELC, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/352/eng@2022-04-06

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