Matheta (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Janet Ciomithea Matheta) v M’Mwenda (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5049 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court ruled that an appellant who withdrew an appeal must pay the respondent's legal costs because costs follow the event.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Costs consequence of a notice of withdrawal of appeal
The appellant bears the respondent's costs of the withdrawn appeal notwithstanding the rider 'with no order as to costs' in the notice, as that rider was abandoned
The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. It further noted that the respondent had instructed a law firm to act for him in the appeal and interlocutory application, so denying him costs would be unfair. The rider 'with no order as to costs' in the withdrawal notice had been abandoned, and Mr Ngunjiri had earlier sought that course on 23/7/2026.
Legal principles established
#- The general principle is that costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is marked 'withdrawn'
- 2.The appellant shall bear the respondent's costs of the appeal
- 3.The file shall be marked 'case closed'
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over an appeal filed by memorandum of appeal dated 30/1/2026; specific provision not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matheta (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Janet Ciomithea Matheta) v M’Mwenda (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (memorandum of appeal dated 30/1/2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5049/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.