Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (appeal from Mombasa BPRT Case No. 250 of 2020, Lead File)· [2025] KEELC 8057 (KLR)

Bedford v Mangi (Through his Attorney Christine Mukangi) & 8 others (Land Case Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8057 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2025
YAY. M. Angima
1,617 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed tribunals can order each side to pay their own costs, even when one party technically wins.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa against the costs order in a judgment of the Business Premises Tribunal dated 21.12.2023. The Tribunal had consolidated five references arising from a landlord-tenant dispute over Title LR No. Kilifi/5054/II involving the appellant, the 1st respondent and eight applicants (sub-tenants), and directed that each party bear its own costs. The appellant, who had his own reference and was also a respondent before the Tribunal, appealed on five grounds contending that as the successful party he was entitled to costs, that the Tribunal gave no reasons for denying costs, and that it failed to apply the correct principles. He sought setting aside of the costs order and substitution with an award of costs in his favour, plus costs of the appeal. The court identified the single issue as whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to award the appellant costs. Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles in Mbogo v Shah and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court held that the award of costs is discretionary and interference is warranted only where the discretion was misdirected, based on irrelevant considerations, or plainly wrong. The court found the appellant was not the sole victor; he had withdrawn notices he issued to sub-tenants and escaped any costs on their account, and the Tribunal expressly departed from the conventional Section 27 position due to the dispute's long history. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Tribunal erred in denying the appellant costs despite his claim to be the successful party

Holding

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's discretion on costs was properly exercised and not plainly wrong

Reasoning

Costs are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the discretion must be exercised judiciously. The appellant was not the sole victor: he was also a respondent before the Tribunal, had issued notices to alter sub-tenants' tenancies which he later withdrew or abandoned, and was not condemned to pay costs on account of those notices. The Tribunal had the dispute's long history in mind and expressly departed from the conventional Section 27 position. Under Mbogo v Shah and Mrao, interference is warranted only for misdirection, irrelevant considerations or a plainly wrong result, none of which was established.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion on costs unless the tribunal misdirected itself, took into account irrelevant factors, or arrived at a plainly wrong decision
  • A successful litigant is ordinarily entitled to costs unless there are grounds militating against such award, but costs remain a matter of judicial discretion

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellant's appeal is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
On appeal from
Business Premises Tribunal
Mombasa BPRT Case No. 250 of 2020 (Lead File), consolidated with 4 other references
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Business Premises) Act (appeal on costs order of the Tribunal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bedford v Mangi (Through his Attorney Christine Mukangi) & 8 others (Land Case Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (appeal from Mombasa BPRT Case No. 250 of 2020, Lead File). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8057/eng@2025-11-20

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