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 3790 (KLR)

Kongo’acheke Clan Community Based Organization (C.B.O. Suing Through Henry Mwenda, the Chairman) v Ngera & another (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3790 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2024
1,625 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a costs ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru following a consent dated 6 March 2024 by which the parties marked the suit as settled, the 1st defendant agreeing not to construct a mortuary, funeral home, morgue or incinerator on parcels LR No Ntima/Ntakiri/7534, 7404 and 7405, leaving costs to the court. The plaintiffs, inhabitants of Kongo Acheke village and officials of a C.B.O., had sued to stop the 1st defendant's project for lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment, citing health and environmental hazards including risk to a nearby water source. An earlier ruling dismissed the 1st defendant's preliminary objection and issued an injunction. The 1st defendant argued that as the litigation was public interest litigation that terminated early by consent, no costs should be awarded, relying on Haraf Traders and Okoiti. The court applied section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rai v Rai, holding that costs follow the event and departure requires good reasons. Examining the parties' conduct, it found the plaintiffs acted without malice in enforcing constitutional environmental rights, while the 1st defendant ignored their complaints, withheld the EIA report, made no attempt at ADR, and only proposed settlement on the eve of the hearing after conceding the claim. The court marked the suit as settled with costs to the plaintiffs, borne by the 1st defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs are payable where parties consent to mark the suit as settled

Holding

The consent conceded prayer No (1) of the plaint, so the plaintiffs succeeded; the general rule that costs follow the event applies and the 1st defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Reasoning

The consent of 6.3.2024 bound the 1st defendant not to construct a mortuary, funeral home, morgue or incinerator on the suit parcels, which amounted to conceding the claim. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court full discretion over costs, but departure from the general rule requires good reasons. The court examined the parties' conduct from the pleadings: the 1st defendant ignored the plaintiffs' pleas, withheld the EIA report, never engaged the plaintiffs in ADR, and only proposed settlement on the eve of the hearing. No omission, misconduct or neglect was attributable to the plaintiffs, who pursued their constitutional environmental rights without malice.

p. 4
02

Whether the public interest character of the litigation justifies denying costs to the successful plaintiffs

Holding

No; the public interest nature of the suit does not displace the general rule on these facts.

Reasoning

The 1st defendant relied on Okoiti, Haraf Traders and Biowatch to urge that public interest litigants should not be awarded costs. The court accepted the framework of considerations - conduct, motivation, stage and manner of termination - but found that the plaintiffs enforced constitutional environmental rights, were not motivated by ill will or ulterior motives, and the 1st defendant's infringement and late settlement proposal outweighed the public interest argument.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event, and a court may only depart from that rule for good reasons such as the conduct of the parties before, during and after litigation.
  • A defendant who infringes the plaintiffs' rights, defends the suit and only settles on the eve of trial should ordinarily bear the costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is marked as settled
  2. 2.Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiffs, to be borne by the 1st defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (costs following the event); Article 159 of the Constitution referenced on ADR

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kongo’acheke Clan Community Based Organization (C.B.O. Suing Through Henry Mwenda, the Chairman) v Ngera & another (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3790 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3790/eng@2024-05-08

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