Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC No. 31 of 2020 (Formerly HCCC No. 342 of 1996)· [2022] KEELC 1543 (KLR)

Hanos (K) Ltd v Mohanlal Nemchand Shah & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1543 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 February 2022
4,465 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court let a company walk away from its 26-year-old land case without paying the defendant's costs, because the defendant suffered no real prejudice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court ruling at Mombasa, delivered by L.L. Naikuni, J on 2nd February 2022, resolved the surviving prayers (4 and 5) of a Notice of Motion dated 24th October 2019 by the 3rd Defendant, Dhiren Mohanlal Shah, seeking directions on a suit discontinued by the Plaintiffs and costs. Prayers 1-3 (change of advocates, firm deemed on record, reconstruction of the court file) had already been granted. The Plaintiffs opposed through a preliminary objection arguing the consent order of 3rd December 2009 for costs to be taxed was time-barred under Section 4(1)(e) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to give directions. The Defendant relied on Order 25 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, contending the Notice of Discontinuance filed 20th January 2015 was irregular for want of leave or consent, and cited Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Limited. The court framed three issues and held that, as a matter of right, the plaintiff retained the right to discontinue its suit at any time, and although leave of court was a legal requirement and not a mere formality, the power was discretionary. Finding nothing substantial occurred since 1996 and the defendant suffered no prejudice, the court suo motu granted leave for the suit (ELC No. 31 of 2020, formerly HCCC No. 342 of 1996) to be discontinued, adopted the Notice of Discontinuance as an order of the court, marked the suit finalized and settled, with no orders as to costs, while leaving the Defendant at liberty to pursue his pending appeal against the judgment in ELC No. 52 of 2016.

Key legal issues

#
01

Right to withdraw a suit under Order 25 Rules 2(1) and (2)

Holding

The plaintiff had the right to discontinue its suit; although leave of court was a legal requirement and not a mere formality where the suit had been set down, the power was discretionary, and the court exercised it suo motu to regularize the discontinuance

Reasoning

The court found the Notice of Discontinuance dated 15th January 2015 valid in substance. It concurred with the defendant's counsel that leave of court was a genuine legal requirement, not a formality, but stressed the resulting powers were purely discretionary. Since nothing substantial had occurred in the case since 1996 and the defendant suffered no inconvenience or prejudice warranting a costs claim, the court invoked its inherent powers and granted leave for discontinuance suo motu, regularizing the matter.

p. 4
02

Whether the defendant was entitled to directions and taxation of a party and party Bill of Costs (Prayers 4 and 5)

Holding

The defendant was not entitled to the directions sought; the suit was discontinued with no orders as to costs, and the defendant was left at liberty to pursue his appeal in the related ELC No. 52 of 2016 matter

Reasoning

The court framed the dispute as whether the consent order of 3rd December 2009 for costs to be taxed was barred by limitation under Section 4(1)(e) of the Limitation of Actions Act. Rather than determine taxation, the court exercised the overriding objective under Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the Environment and Land Court Act to overcome undue technicalities, discontinued the suit with no orders as to costs, and preserved the defendant's appeal against the judgment in ELC No. 52 of 2016.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A plaintiff retains the right to discontinue its suit at any time; where the suit has been set down for hearing, discontinuance requires either written consent of all parties or leave of court granted on such terms as are just, but the power is discretionary
  • Costs of and incidental to all suits are at the discretion of the court or judge and costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court invoked its inherent powers under Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 3 and 13(1) & (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, Section 150 of the Land Act, Section 101 of the Land Registration Act and Articles 159(1) & (2) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution
  2. 2.The Plaintiff, Hanos (Kenya) Limited, granted leave to discontinue its suit ELC No. 31 of 2020 (formerly HCCC No. 342 of 1996) pursuant to its Notice of Discontinuance dated 15th January, 2015 with no orders as to costs
  3. 3.The Notice of Discontinuance by the Plaintiff adopted as an Order of the Court
  4. 4.The suit marked as finalized and settled henceforth
  5. 5.The 3rd Defendant at liberty to continue pursuing the appeal pending before the Court of Appeal against the judgment in ELC No. 52 of 2016 (formerly HC Misc. Application No. 667 of 2009) to its logical conclusion

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 rule 9; Order 25 Rules 2(1) and (2); Order 57 Rule 14(d) & (e); Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 27(1)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22Section 4(1)(e)
  • Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2012Sections 3 and 13(1) & (2)
  • Land Act, 2012Section 150
  • Land Registration Act, 2012Section 101
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(1) and (2), 162(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Limited [2015] eKLR
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1, 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3 and 13(1) & (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2012; Section 150 of the Land Act, 2012; Section 101 of the Land Registration Act, 2012; Articles 159(1) & (2) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hanos (K) Ltd v Mohanlal Nemchand Shah & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1543 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC No. 31 of 2020 (Formerly HCCC No. 342 of 1996). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1543/eng@2022-02-02

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