Robert Shaw & 2 others v Director of General National Environment Management Authority & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1993 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court ruled that people who withdraw a lawsuit usually pay the other side's legal costs, unless they can prove they genuinely sued for the public.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether costs should be awarded to the 3rd Defendant upon withdrawal of the suit
Yes - costs awarded but limited to defending the two applications.
The court exercises its discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although costs follow the event, the discretion must be exercised judiciously on the circumstances of each case. The 3rd Defendant, sued personally, had filed responses, a preliminary objection, defended two interim applications and complied with pre-trial directions before the withdrawal, thus incurring costs. The plaintiffs' public-interest characterisation was unsupported by any authority to sue on behalf of the associations, so no special costs considerations for public interest litigation applied.
Whether the suit was a public interest litigation entitling plaintiffs to walk away without costs
No - the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of residents was misleading.
The plaintiffs contended the suit was public interest litigation on behalf of Windy Ridge Residents Association and Karen Langata District Association, arguing no costs should be awarded in such matters. However, on perusal of the pleadings the court found no authority or evidence that the plaintiffs were officials or members of the associations or authorised to sue on their behalf. The contention was therefore misleading, removing the basis for a public-interest costs exception.
Legal principles established
#- Costs of a suit are in the discretion of the court; costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
- A party who withdraws a suit wholly must as a general rule pay the defendant's costs
Court orders
#- 1.Costs shall be paid by the Plaintiffs to the 3rd Defendant, limited only to costs for defending the two applications filed by the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (discretion as to costs)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robert Shaw & 2 others v Director of General National Environment Management Authority & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1993 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1993/eng@2022-01-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.