Ndungu & 2 others (Suing as the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer Representatives of Ambassador of Christ Church) v Kisorio (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1235 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (court not expressly identified in the judgment; delivered at Nyahururu)

26 February 2026

LMLUCY N. MBUGUA

363 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court awarded only half the costs to a defendant after a plaintiff withdrew their case early, balancing defence effort against the case's early stage.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a brief costs ruling arising after a suit before the court at Nyahururu was withdrawn on 29 July 2025, upon which the defendant sought costs and the parties were directed to file submissions on costs. The court considered section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which vests discretion in the court over costs while providing that costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, otherwise orders. The court also applied the Supreme Court decision in Baridi Felix Mbevo vs. Musee Mati & 2 others [2021] eKLR, which affirms that costs fall within the inherent powers of the court and that the jurisdiction is a judicial discretion to be exercised judicially, in accordance with reason and justice. Balancing the defendant's participation in the litigation - an application to set aside the ex parte judgment, a replying affidavit, and two pre-trial sessions - against the early stage at which the suit was withdrawn, the court held that the defendant deserved some costs but not full costs. On 26 February 2026 the court ordered that the defendant be awarded half costs of the suit. The ruling was delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for both parties and a court assistant present.

Key legal issues

Whether a defendant who successfully resists full costs after withdrawal of a suit merits an award of costs

Holding

The defendant deserves some costs for steps taken in the defence, but only half costs because the suit was withdrawn at an early stage.

Reasoning

The court applied section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, under which costs are discretionary but follow the event unless good reason is shown. The defendant had filed an application to set aside the ex parte judgment, defended through a replying affidavit, and attended pre-trial twice, warranting some costs. Because the suit was withdrawn at an early stage, the court moderated the award to half costs rather than full costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court, but costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders.
The jurisdiction over costs is inherent and its exercise is a judicial discretion to be exercised judicially, in accordance with reason and justice.

Court orders

1.The defendant is awarded half costs of the suit

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure ActSection 27(1)

Cases cited (2)

Baridi Felix Mbevo vs. Musee Mati & 2 others
[2021] eKLR
Jasbir Singh Rai case

Jurisdiction invoked: Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (discretion of the court as to costs)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndungu & 2 others (Suing as the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer Representatives of Ambassador of Christ Church) v Kisorio (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1235 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1235/eng@2026-02-26

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