Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKaratina Environment and Land Case No. E004 of 2021 (Appeal)· [2025] KEELC 7792 (KLR)

Trustees Presbeterian Foundation & 3 others v Gitehi & 2 others (Civil Appeal 13 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7792 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2025
JOJ.O. Olola
2,663 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that winning parties in public interest land cases may still be denied court costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa against a ruling of the Karatina Principal Magistrate's Court delivered on 6th April 2022 in ELC No. E004 of 2021. The Respondents, residents of Kianjogu, Thaithi and Kirimukuyu villages, had sued the Appellants seeking revocation and cancellation of a title issued to the Presbyterian Foundation over land parcel Kirimukuyu/Kiria/792 and its reversion to the public, together with interim restrictions on dealings. The Appellants' preliminary objection on limitation grounds was dismissed with costs on 24th June 2021, the court noting that a limitation claim for land recovery allowed 12 years and the suit was filed in the 7th year. However, on the valuation report of the Nyeri County Valuer placing the property's market value at Kshs. 34,600,000/=, the trial magistrate (Hon. K.M. Njalale, P.M.) found the suit beyond the court's pecuniary jurisdiction and struck it out, with no order as to costs. The sole ground of appeal was that the magistrate erred in denying the Appellants costs without explanation, contrary to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The ELC, per J.O. Olola, J, held that the trial court had in fact given reasons for its decision, and that the suit was in the nature of public interest litigation, making no order as to costs a proper exercise of the discretion on costs. Citing the Supreme Court in Jashir Singh Rai, the court noted that public interest is a relevant factor in the exercise of the costs discretion. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial magistrate erred in declining to award costs to the successful Appellants when striking out the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction

Holding

The trial court exercised its discretion judicially; the suit was public interest litigation, justifying no order as to costs, and the appeal fails

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court full discretion over costs, with costs normally following the event unless good reason exists. The trial court gave reasons: it had familiarised itself with the file and prior ruling and had itself required a valuation report after the Appellants claimed the property exceeded Kshs. 40 million. Given the public interest nature of the residents' claim to revoke the title, the denial of costs was a proper exercise of discretion which the appellate court should not disturb.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs are discretionary but must be exercised judicially; the general rule that costs follow the event should not be departed from without good reason, and claims of public interest are a relevant factor in that discretion
  • An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion on costs unless exercised unjudicially or on wrong principles, or where no reason is given and the order is wrong

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 4(1)(e), 17, 20(2), 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Magistrates' Court ActPecuniary jurisdiction provisions (Article 169(2) of the Constitution referenced in trial proceedings)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 169(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited
    (1958) E.A 424
  • Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & Others
    (1968) 1 EA 123
  • Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya v Mutula Kilonzo & 2 Others
    HC EP. No. 6 of 2013
  • Punchline Limited v Joseph Mugo Kibana & 10 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Supermarine Handling Services Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority
    (2010) eKLR
  • Jashir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others
    (2014) eKLR
On appeal from
Karatina Principal Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land Case No. E004 of 2021)
E004 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over decisions of the Principal Magistrate's Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trustees Presbeterian Foundation & 3 others v Gitehi & 2 others (Civil Appeal 13 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Karatina Environment and Land Case No. E004 of 2021 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7792/eng@2025-11-13

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