Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 4432 (KLR)

Langat & 5 others v Kiberu & another (Environment & Land Case 254 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 4432 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2024
AOA.O. Ombwayo
1,366 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to change a costs order because the defendant raised no new evidence or error, just arguments he could have made earlier.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court (A.O. Ombwayo J) determines a notice of motion dated 27th February 2024 filed by the 1st Defendant seeking review of the costs orders made when judgment was delivered on 2nd February 2024, in a suit in which the court had partly allowed the Plaintiffs' claim concerning a slaughterhouse said to be a health hazard to the community. The 1st Defendant sought extension of time to comply with the judgment (demolition and rebuilding of a wall) and, principally, review of the costs award so that each party bears its own costs on the ground that the suit was public interest litigation, relying on Supreme Court decisions on costs in public interest suits. The 2nd Plaintiff opposed, contending that no error apparent on the record or new evidence justified review, that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that the application invited the court to sit on appeal over its own judgment. The court framed a single issue: whether the orders of 2nd February 2024 on costs should be reviewed. Applying Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Otieno, Ragot decision, the court held that no new and important matter or evidence had been placed before it, no error apparent on the face of the record had been demonstrated, and no other sufficient reason existed to warrant review. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should review its costs order of 2nd February 2024 on the ground that the suit was public interest litigation

Holding

The application failed; the 1st Defendant placed no new matter or evidence before the court and demonstrated no error apparent on the face of the record.

Reasoning

Order 45 Rule 1(1) confines review to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The 1st Defendant argued only that the suit was public interest litigation and that public interest litigants should not be awarded costs, relying on Supreme Court authorities. The court found nothing new was placed before it, that the argument could have been made at the time costs were awarded, and no sufficient reason warranted disturbing the order.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Review of an order lies only on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason under Order 45 Rule 1(1)
  • An application for review must be specific on the ground on which it is brought

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 27th February 2024 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Langat & 5 others v Kiberu & another (Environment & Land Case 254 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 4432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4432/eng@2024-05-30

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