Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther· [2026] KEELC 3678 (KLR)

Ruluti v Kamencu (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Lintari Ithiuki – Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3678 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2026
BEB M Eboso
188 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 court allowed a plaintiff to withdraw a land suit but ordered them to pay the defendant's costs under the Civil Procedure Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance suit before the Environment and Land Court at Meru in which the plaintiff, by a notice of withdrawal dated 10/6/2026, sought to withdraw the suit. Counsel for the plaintiff invited the court to exercise its discretion on the issue of costs. The defendant did not object to the withdrawal but insisted on being awarded the costs of the suit, contending that he had engaged an advocate to defend the claim and had thereby incurred costs. The court allowed the withdrawal. On costs, the court applied the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event, and held that no proper grounds had been demonstrated to warrant a departure from that principle. It therefore ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the withdrawn suit. The suit was marked 'withdrawn', the plaintiff was decreed to bear the costs of the suit, and the file was marked 'Case closed'. The judgment was delivered at Meru on 16 June 2026 by B M Eboso, ELC Judge, with Mr Gitonga Githiu appearing for the plaintiff, Mr Nkunja for the defendant, and Mr E. Tupet as court assistant. No authorities were cited and no separate opinions were rendered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Withdrawal of suit

Holding

The court allowed the plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit where the defendant did not object, subject to costs.

Reasoning

Counsel for the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit by notice dated 10/6/2026. The defendant did not object to the withdrawal but sought costs on the ground that he had engaged an advocate to defend the claim and incurred costs. The court exercised its discretion to permit the withdrawal.

p. 1
02

Costs upon withdrawal

Holding

Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and no grounds justified departing from that principle; the plaintiff bears the costs.

Reasoning

The court applied the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event. Although the defendant insisted on costs because he had engaged an advocate and incurred costs, no proper grounds for departure from the general principle were demonstrated, so the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the withdrawn suit.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and departure from that general principle requires proper grounds to be demonstrated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The withdrawal of the suit is allowed and the suit is marked 'withdrawn'
  2. 2.The plaintiff is decreed to bear costs of the suit
  3. 3.The file shall be marked 'Case closed'
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (costs follow the event); inherent discretion on withdrawal of suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ruluti v Kamencu (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Lintari Ithiuki – Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3678/eng@2026-06-16

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