Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment extract· [2025] KEELC 8479 (KLR)

Kinyenje (Suing on Behalf of Elias Kiautha Mputhia through the Power of Attorney) v Mwiti & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8479 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 December 2025
BEB M Eboso
158 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court removed Bank of Africa from a Meru land appeal but denied it legal costs against the appellants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ex-tempore ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru, delivered by B M Eboso J on 1 December 2025, determined a Chamber Summons dated 9 June 2025 by which Bank of Africa Limited, the 5th respondent in an appeal pending before the court, sought an order removing itself from the appeal together with costs against the appellants. The appeal emanated from a suit in the lower court in which the bank had been a party. At the hearing of the application, the only element contested by the appellants was the prayer for costs; counsel for the 5th respondent then abandoned the quest for costs. The court allowed the application in terms of prayer 1, thereby removing the 5th respondent from the appeal. On costs, the court reasoned that because the 5th respondent had been a party to the suit in the lower court and was therefore a necessary party to the appeal, no award of costs would be made in its favour in the appeal. The court accordingly issued orders allowing the application without costs. No authorities or statutory provisions were cited in the ruling, and it is a short procedural decision dealing with the composition of parties to the appeal rather than the merits of the underlying dispute.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 5th respondent should be removed from the appeal and whether costs should be awarded

Holding

The application was allowed in terms of prayer 1, removing the 5th respondent from the appeal, but no costs were awarded because the applicant was a necessary party to the appeal and counsel abandoned the costs plea.

Reasoning

The court noted that the applicant, Bank of Africa Limited, sought removal from the appeal plus costs. The appellants opposed only the costs prayer, and counsel for the applicant abandoned the quest for costs at the hearing. Because the applicant had been a party to the suit in the lower court and thus a necessary party to the appeal, the court declined to award costs while granting the removal order.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party to the suit in the lower court who is a necessary party to the appeal may be removed from the appeal without an award of costs in its favour.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9/6/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 1 (removal of the 5th respondent from the appeal)
  2. 2.No award of costs to the 5th respondent in this appeal
On appeal from
Lower court (not named in the judgment)
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment extract

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kinyenje (Suing on Behalf of Elias Kiautha Mputhia through the Power of Attorney) v Mwiti & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8479 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8479/eng@2025-12-01

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