Bandari v Muye & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E105 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1356 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed defendants to recover their legal costs after a withdrawn land suit, ruling a false settlement claim denied them costs unfairly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error apparent on the face of the record justifying review
The court found that the plaintifi's counsel misrepresented that the parties had settled the matter, and the court mistakenly accepted this and denied the defendants costs, constituting an error apparent on the record warranting review under Order 45.
The court reviewed the record of 11th November 2024 and found that the defendants and their counsel were absent because the suit had been withdrawn by notice; the court could not confirm the mention notice was served. Counsel for the plaintifi stated the matter was settled without evidence of any settlement, thereby 'stealing a match'. This mistaken acceptance deprived the defendants of costs and was an error apparent on the face of the record, a legitimate ground for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
Entitlement of defendants to costs upon withdrawal of suit
The defendants, who were forced to defend a suit that was ultimately withdrawn and were not heard on costs, are entitled to the costs of the suit; costs follow the event unless expressly waived.
Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and authorities including Mudhihiri Mohammed and Wanjiku v Del Monte, the court held that costs follow the event and a party cannot be deprived of costs unless it acted unreasonably. The defendants neither attended nor waived their entitlement to costs; a waiver of costs could only be made by the parties themselves. The order denying costs was made in their absence based on misrepresentation.
Legal principles established
#- A review may be granted where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, such as a court mistakenly accepting counsel's false statement of settlement
- An application for review must strictly prove its grounds, save for the ground of mistake or error apparent on the record
Court orders
#- 1.Awarded the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants/Applicants the costs of the suit
- 2.Deemed the Bill of Costs dated 25th November 2024 properly on record and ordered it to proceed to taxation
- 3.Awarded the costs of the application to the Defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (review jurisdiction); Article 159 of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act cited as guiding the wider approach
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bandari v Muye & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E105 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1356 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1356/eng@2026-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.