Kenya Railways Corporation v C. Dorman Limited (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1069 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3871 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ruled that Kenya Railways could not charge a business fees for railway services it no longer provided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Defendant was right in charging the siding fee
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought in the Plaint
- 3.Who pays the cost of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant was entitled to charge the Siding Fee under Clause 13 of the title deed
The Defendant was not entitled to charge the Siding Fee. Clause 13 of the title deed relates to taxes, duties and outgoings imposed by government or local authority, and does not mention Siding Fees; and under Section 13(2)(f) of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act any fee must be pegged on a service performed or facility used, none of which was provided.
DW1 conceded in cross-examination that Clause 13 does not mention Siding Fees and that there was no evidence the Defendant rendered loading services to the Plaintiff or currently renders such services. The Plaintiff's correspondence seeking the legal basis of the fee was unanswered. The Defendant's own Defence and witness statement admitted payment of the fee was dependent on provision of a cargo loading platform, which had been unusable since the mid-1970s.
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought in the Plaint
The claim was proved on a balance of probability in respect of the declaration sought; the Plaintiff has no obligation to pay fees for services not provided.
The court found the Plaintiff's evidence unrebutted that the railway platform had not been usable since the mid-1970s and that payments were made under a mistake. The Defendant failed to adduce evidence of service rendered as required by Section 13(2) of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act, so the claim on liability for the fee succeeded.
Who bears the costs of the suit
Although the Plaintiff succeeded and costs would normally follow the event, the court exercised its discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to direct each party to bear its own costs because the Defendant is a public institution.
Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Everest Enterprises Limited, the court noted costs are discretionary and depend on the circumstances of each case. Here the Defendant is a public institution, which the court took as good reason to depart from the general rule.
Legal principles established
#- A statutory corporation may only levy a fee for a service it performs or a facility it provides; it cannot insist on payment for a non-available service.
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, but the court retains discretion to order otherwise for good reason.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff owes the Defendant no Siding Fee or other fees, since no services were being provided by the Defendant
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit; no constitutional or statutory jurisdictional provision expressly invoked
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiff, attaching its property, or alienating or destroying it
The court held the claim proved on the fee question and awarded costs, but the final orders do not expressly grant the injunctive relief sought
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the suit; the court noted the Defendant is a public institution and therefore declined to award costs despite the Plaintiff's success.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This being the case, it was not proper that the Defendant insists that the Plaintifi pays a fee for a non-available service.
since there were no services being provided by the Defendant, then the Plaintifi has no obligation to pay for what was not being provided.
Whereas I would have readily awarded costs I note that the Defendant is a public institution and I will therefore direct that each party bears their own cost of the suit.
Finally the Plaintifi has proved their case on a balance of probability against the Defendant and each party to bear their own cost of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Clause 13 of the title deed is quoted twice with materially different wording: once as 'The Grantee shall pay such taxes duties assessments or outgoings' and once as 'The guarantee shall pay such taxes clients assessment or outgoing'
Judgment refers to 'Costs of Originating Summons dated 9th June, 2009' although the suit is described as a plaint instituted on 4/04/2013
DW1 is described as Surveyor at the 'Respondent's Company' although the matter is a first-instance suit, not an appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Railways Corporation v C. Dorman Limited (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1069 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3871 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (instituted 4/04/2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3871/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.