Kassam & 13 others v Njoroge & 13 others (Environment and Planning Petition E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 584 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that even genuine public interest petitioners can be ordered to pay their opponents' legal costs if they handle the case poorly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a withdrawn Petition brought in the public interest should attract costs against the Petitioners
Costs were awarded to the Respondents who sought them despite the public interest character of the Petition, because of the stage the matter had reached and the Petitioners' conduct
The court recognised that public interest litigation ordinarily attracts exemption from the costs-follow-the-event rule to protect access to justice. However, discretion must account for the conduct of parties and the stage of proceedings. Several Respondents had filed substantial responses and preliminary objections; the Petitioners filed an Amended Petition in disregard of court directions and withdrew the Petition without canvassing their amendment Motion, serving the withdrawal late. Balancing these factors, costs to the Respondents who sought them were just and reasonable.
Whether the withdrawn Petition qualified as public interest litigation
The court found that it did, since the Petitioners' claims as adjacent owners and occupiers extended beyond private grievances to enforcement of environmental laws and regulatory accountability
The Petitioners were owners/occupiers of neighbouring apartments with direct personal interests, but their claims implicating environmental conservation, planning laws and the Article 42 right to a clean and healthy environment transcended private disputes. The Petition raised questions affecting the public interest regarding enforcement of environmental laws and accountability of regulatory agencies.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event but remain subject to the court's judicial discretion, and public interest litigation is a recognised ground for departure from the general rule
- A court may only award costs to parties who sought them
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioners shall pay costs of the Petition to the 2nd, 5th -9th and 10th-11th Respondents to be assessed by the taxing master.
- 2.The other Respondents shall bear their own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 70 and 165 of the Constitution; Section 15(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 26 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Active Environmental Team v Username Investment Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5013 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 5013 (KLR)30 Jul 2026
- Otieno v Safaricom Investment Co-operative Society Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4892 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4892 (KLR)30 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kassam & 13 others v Njoroge & 13 others (Environment and Planning Petition E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 584 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Petition (Nairobi), Petition of 12th April 2024 (referred to in judgment; new Petition E021 of 2024 separately filed). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/584/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.