Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther[Not stated in the judgment]· [2025] KEELC 6312 (KLR)

Chabari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wallace Chabari Murianki – Deceased) v Kirimi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6312 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 September 2025
BEB M Eboso
261 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

#

Withdrawing a Kenyan land case after defendants have mounted a defence will cost the withdrawing plaintiff the defendants' legal fees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Chuka (B M Eboso, ELC Judge) on an oral application by the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with no order as to costs, following a notice of withdrawal dated 14 August 2025. All four defendants did not object to the withdrawal but each insisted on being awarded the costs of the suit, contending that they had engaged counsel, filed defences contesting the plaintiff's claim and attended court severally. The court considered the arguments and applied the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event. It found that the plaintiff's decision to withdraw came only after the defendants had enlisted the services of counsel and filed defences resisting the claim, and that in those circumstances it would be unjust to deny the sued defendants their costs. The court accordingly allowed the withdrawal of the suit but ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the withdrawn primary suit. The judgment is dated, signed and delivered at Chuka on 23 September 2025, with Ms Otieno appearing for the plaintiff, Mr Kijaru for the 1st defendant, Ms Mwema for the 2nd defendant, and Ms Kendi for the 3rd and 4th defendants. The suit did not proceed to a full trial or determination on the merits; it ended on withdrawal with a costs order against the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a plaintiff withdrawing a suit after defendants have engaged counsel and filed defences should bear the defendants' costs

Holding

Yes; the withdrawal is allowed but the plaintiff bears the costs

Reasoning

The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Because the plaintiff's decision to withdraw came only after the defendants had enlisted counsel, filed defences contesting the claim and attended court severally, denying the defendants their costs would be unjust. The withdrawal was therefore permitted on terms that the plaintiff bears the costs of the withdrawn suit.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • The jurisdiction to award costs is guided by the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's plea to withdraw the suit is allowed
  2. 2.The plaintiff is to bear the costs of the withdrawn primary suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (jurisdiction to award costs); inherent powers over withdrawal of suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chabari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wallace Chabari Murianki – Deceased) v Kirimi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6312 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). [Not stated in the judgment]. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6312/eng@2025-09-23

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