Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment extract· [2026] KEELC 2887 (KLR)

Fave Gas Oil K Ltd v Meru County & Investment Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2887 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (inferred from Coram; the judgment does not name the court)
12 May 2026
BEB M Eboso
186 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

#

A Kenyan land court allowed a plaintiff to withdraw their case but left the question of who pays legal costs for another day.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief ex-tempore ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (B M Eboso J) delivered on 12 May 2026 on an oral application by the plaintiff to have the suit marked 'Withdrawn with no order as to costs.' The defendants did not oppose the withdrawal itself but insisted that they should be awarded the costs of the suit. The plaintiff resisted any costs order on the ground that the defendants never served a single court document on the plaintiff and were therefore deemed not to have filed any response to the suit. The court marked the plaintiff's substantive claim as withdrawn but declined to determine the costs question summarily. Instead, it directed that the issue of costs be canvassed through affidavit evidence to be tendered and exchanged within 20 days: the plaintiff to file and serve an affidavit within 10 days, and the defendants to file and serve theirs within 10 days of service, with brief oral submissions on costs scheduled for 3 June 2026. The ruling thus reserves the contentious question of whether a defendant who has filed no response and served no documents is entitled to costs following a voluntary withdrawal. Ms. Nyokabi appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Ikioo for the defendants, with Mr. E. Tupet as court assistant. No authorities or statutes were cited, and no final costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff could withdraw the suit and obtain an order of no costs

Holding

The suit was marked withdrawn on the plaintiff's oral application, unopposed as to withdrawal itself, but the costs consequence was not resolved at that stage

Reasoning

The defendants did not oppose the withdrawal but sought costs of the suit. The plaintiff opposed costs, arguing that the defendants never served any court document and were deemed not to have filed a response. The court granted the withdrawal but reserved costs for determination on affidavit evidence and brief oral submissions, setting a timetable for filing and a hearing date.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a suit is withdrawn but costs are contested, the question of costs may be canvassed through affidavit evidence and oral submissions rather than decided summarily on the withdrawal application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's substantive claim is marked 'withdrawn'
  2. 2.The issue of costs shall be canvassed through affidavit evidence to be tendered and exchanged within 20 days
  3. 3.The plaintiff shall file and serve their affidavit within 10 days
  4. 4.The defendants shall file and serve their affidavit within 10 days of service
  5. 5.Parties will tender brief oral submissions on the issue of costs on 3/6/2026
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment extract

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fave Gas Oil K Ltd v Meru County & Investment Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2887 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2887/eng@2026-05-12

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