Mugacia & 4 others v Makindi Banks Limited (Environment & Land Case 183 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that costs awarded against multiple parties must be shared equally, not extracted from one person alone.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Apportionment of jointly and severally awarded costs among multiple plaintiffs
Each of the five Plaintiffs must bear an equal pro rata share of the decretal costs rather than the 1st Plaintiff bearing the entire burden
The court found the costs of Kshs. 378,790 were awarded against all five Plaintiffs jointly and severally. The Defendant had targeted only the 1st Plaintiff for execution, proclaiming his property, including two cows that were the sole income of the 83-year-old applicant. The court held execution against one plaintiff when the decree binds all of them is neither fair nor just, and directed equal apportionment at Kshs. 75,758 per plaintiff with nine months to pay.
Reasonable time to settle decretal sum
The court granted the Plaintiffs nine months within which to settle the decretal sum
The applicant pleaded that the Plaintiffs were men and women of straw and sought reasonable and affordable time to settle the costs. The unopposed motion persuaded the court that an instalment window was appropriate. The court accordingly directed that the decretal sum be paid within nine months, effectively staying execution against any single plaintiff's property in the interim.
Legal principles established
#- It is not fair or just to execute against one co-debtor when a decree is awarded against several parties jointly and severally; execution should be apportioned pro rata.
Court orders
#- 1.The decretal amount be paid on a pro rata basis with each Plaintiff paying Kshs. 75,758
- 2.The decretal sum be paid within a period of 9 months
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Orders 40 rule 1(a) and 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 27 and 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugacia & 4 others v Makindi Banks Limited (Environment & Land Case 183 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3583/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.