Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherOriginating Summons dated 17th September 2020 (Bunyala/Mudembi/1195)· [2024] KEELC 7334 (KLR)

Buluma v Wanyama & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 7334 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2024
1,260 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A Kenyan court ruled that defendants dropped from a withdrawn land suit deserve their costs, even though they subdivided the disputed land while the case was pending.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory costs ruling arising from an Originating Summons by Michael Sibi Buluma concerning land parcel Bunyala/Mudembi/1195. The suit was originally filed against three Defendants, but after amendment on 22nd September 2022 the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were deleted, leaving the 1st Defendant as sole Defendant. When the matter came up for hearing on 25th July 2024, counsel for the Defendants sought costs for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants consequent upon the withdrawal of the suit against them. Plaintiff's counsel opposed, arguing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants should not get costs because they sub-divided the suit land during the pendency of the suit, creating parcel Bunyala/Mudembi/3258, now the subject of the suit. Judge Boaz N. Olao held that costs are discretionary under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 25 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and applied the Supreme Court's decision in Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Singh Rai. The court noted the Defendants' injunction application had been dismissed by Omollo J on 10th February 2021, so they were free to utilise and sub-divide the land. The court found it would be unfair and an injustice to deny the 2nd and 3rd Defendants their costs, having filed responses before the amendment, and ordered that they are entitled to costs of the withdrawn suit, agreed or taxed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a defendant against whom a suit is withdrawn is entitled to costs

Holding

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants who had filed responses before the amendment and against whom the suit was withdrawn at the hearing stage were entitled to costs; the plaintiff's sub-division argument did not displace their right to costs.

Reasoning

Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests discretion over costs in the court, with costs following the event unless good reason is shown. Order 25 Rule 2 permits withdrawal upon terms as to costs that are just. The sub-division occurred because the plaintiff's injunction application had been dismissed by Omollo J, leaving the Defendants free to utilise the land. Denying costs would be unfair and an injustice since the Defendants had already filed responses to the Originating Summons before the amendment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs of and incidental to all suits are at the discretion of the Court or judge and follow the event unless the Court for good reason otherwise orders
  • The award of costs is guided by the principle that costs follow the event, but this is not an invariable rule; the ultimate factor is the judicially-exercised discretion of the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are awarded costs of the withdrawn suit against them, agreed or taxed
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 25 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (discretion as to costs)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Buluma v Wanyama & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 7334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons dated 17th September 2020 (Bunyala/Mudembi/1195). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7334/eng@2024-11-06

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