Lucy Mmbone Luchinga v Borderless Tracking Limited & 4 others
The bottom line
#An employer that loses or settles an employment case in Kenya will normally pay the employee's legal costs unless it gives the court a good reason not to.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether costs of the suit should follow the event, i.e. be paid by the 1st Respondent to the Claimant, following the Consent Judgment
Key legal issues
#Award of costs after consent judgment
Costs awarded to the Claimant against the 1st Respondent as costs follow the event and no good reason was shown to depart from that rule
The parties consented to all issues except costs, which was left to the Court. A consent judgment was entered for the Claimant against the 1st Respondent for Kshs.730,000/=. Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 12(4) of the ELRC Act, costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good reason. No affidavit or other material was offered to justify departure, so costs were awarded to the Claimant.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.Costs of the suit to be paid by the 1st Respondent to the Claimant
- 2.Costs to be taxed if parties do not agree within thirty days of the Ruling
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstances, I order that costs of the suit herein shall be paid by the 1st Respondent to the Claimant, and that the same shall be taxed if the Claimant and the 1st Respondent do not agree on the same within thirty days of this Ruling.
Costs must always follow the event, unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise.
Issues in the judgment
#Document repeatedly marked DRAFT
Consent dated 30th April 2026 and consent judgment of 4th May 2026 in a cause numbered 2025, delivered 25 September 2026
Body uses '1st Respondent' though parties are styled plaintiff/defendant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Mmbone Luchinga v Borderless Tracking Limited & 4 others", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E144 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2675/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.