Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther· [2024] KEELC 497 (KLR)

Edpark Estate Management Limited & 38 others v Serem & another (Environment & Land Case E202 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 497 (KLR)

Not stated in the judgment
6 February 2024
1,098 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Withdrawing a lawsuit in Kenya does not spare you costs; the court can still order you to pay the other side's legal expenses.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a ruling delivered virtually at Nairobi on 6th February 2024, M.D. Mwangi, Judge, determined the question of costs following the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit. On 24th October 2023, counsel for the Plaintiff, Ms. Karwitha, informed the Court that the Ministry of Lands had clarified the position on the title to the suit property and official searches confirmed no caveats on the titles; the Plaintiffs therefore no longer had use for the suit and sought to withdraw it with no orders as to costs. The 1st Defendant, through Mr. Wandati, did not object to the withdrawal but insisted on costs, citing numerous court attendances. The Court allowed the withdrawal but directed parties to submit on costs; the 2nd Defendant did not participate. Both sides agreed the discretion is governed by Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and identified the relevant factors: the subject of the suit, circumstances of institution and termination, the stage of termination, the parties' relationship and the need for reconciliation. The Plaintiffs, invoking Jasbir Singh Rai, urged departure from the rule that costs follow the event because the suit was prompted by alarming Ministry of Lands letters. The Court noted the record showed numerous attendances and that the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2021 had been dismissed with costs on 12th July 2022. Holding the 1st Defendant entitled to costs for the trouble of defending, but moderating the award by the stage of termination, the Court fixed reasonable costs at Kshs 120,000/=, inclusive of the costs of the dismissed application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs should follow the event upon the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit

Holding

The general rule that costs follow the event applied; the 1st Defendant was entitled to costs for the trouble of defending the suit, but the amount was moderated by the stage at which the suit was terminated

Reasoning

Both parties agreed the discretion is governed by Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and that costs follow the event unless there are good reasons to depart. The Plaintiff urged departure citing the Ministry of Lands letters that prompted the suit. The Court, however, noted numerous court attendances and its earlier dismissal of the Plaintiff's application with costs, and concluded the 1st Defendant deserved compensation for defending, tempered by the early stage of termination, fixing a lump sum of Kshs 120,000/=.

p. 3
02

Whether the Plaintiff's plea that the suit was prompted by Ministry of Lands letters justified denial of costs

Holding

The plea did not displace the general rule; the Court still awarded costs, though moderated

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs argued their action was prompted by alarming letters from the Ministry of Lands, warranting departure from the costs-follow-the-event rule as recognized in Jasbir Singh Rai. The Court acknowledged its discretion to identify good reasons for departure but, weighing the conduct of proceedings, the numerous attendances and the prior costs award, found the 1st Defendant nonetheless entitled to costs, though only reasonable costs given the stage of termination.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court, and costs follow the event unless the court for good reasons otherwise directs
  • In exercising its costs discretion on withdrawal, the court considers the subject of the suit, the circumstances leading to institution and termination, the stage of termination, and the relationship between the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Suit withdrawn (allowed earlier, with costs reserved for determination)
  2. 2.1st Defendant awarded reasonable costs of Kshs 120,000/= inclusive of the costs for the dismissal of the Plaintiff's application awarded on 12th July, 2022

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(c)

Cases cited (4)

  • DMG -vs- EWG
    [2021] eKLR
  • Republic –vs- Rosemary Wairimu Munene, Exparte Applicant -vs- Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd
    Judicial Review Application No. 6 of 2014
  • Haraf Traders Ltd – versus- Narok County Government
    [2023] eKLR
  • Jasbir Singh Rai & others -versus- Tarlochan Rai and others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit jurisdiction; costs discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edpark Estate Management Limited & 38 others v Serem & another (Environment & Land Case E202 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 497 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/497/eng@2024-02-06

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