Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 5128 (KLR)

Gichuki & another v Church Commissioner of Kenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5128 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 July 2025
MGM.N. Gicheru
244 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

When you withdraw a lawsuit in Kenya, expect to pay the other side's legal costs unless you convince the court of a good reason otherwise.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Murang'a (M.N. Gicheru J) determined a single question: whether the Defendant was entitled to the costs of the suit after the Plaintiffs' counsel withdrew the suit on 18 February 2025, on the ground that the Plaintiffs had been evicted from the land and a church built on it. Only the Respondent's (Defendant's) counsel filed written submissions on costs; the Plaintiffs filed none. The court applied the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that costs of any action, cause or matter shall follow the event unless the court or judge, for good reason, otherwise orders. Holding that the party brought to court unwillingly should ordinarily be paid costs where a case is withdrawn or dismissed, and noting that the Plaintiffs' counsel gave no reason - 'let alone a bad one' - why costs should not follow the event, the court found no good reason to deviate from precedent and practice. It awarded the costs of the suit to the Respondent and ordered 'It is so ordered.' The ruling was delivered virtually at Murang'a on 8 July 2025, with the Plaintiffs' counsel absent and the Defendant's counsel, Mr Gichuki, present. No other relief was in issue in this ruling, and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs should be awarded to the Defendant upon the Plaintiffs' withdrawal of the suit

Holding

Costs awarded to the Defendant/Respondent because no good reason was advanced to depart from the rule that costs follow the event

Reasoning

The proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act establishes that costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good reason. The suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiffs, whose counsel filed no submissions on costs and offered no reason, let alone a good one, to deviate from the established practice of awarding costs to the unwilling party brought to court.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, otherwise orders; a party brought to court unwillingly should be paid costs where a case is withdrawn or dismissed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent/Defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (costs following the event)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gichuki & another v Church Commissioner of Kenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5128/eng@2025-07-08

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