Lois Holdings Ltd (Suing Through its Director Pamela Karambu Kimbui) v Kimbui & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3694 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3694 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E010 OF 2025 CK NZILI, J JUNE 17, 2026 BETWEEN LOIS HOLDINGS LIMITED (SUING THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PAMELA KARAMBU KIMBUI) ................................................................................ PLAINTIFF AND DOUGLAS GITUMA KIMBUI ....................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT ROBERT CHELABIT ...................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT EDWARD KIPNGETICH ............................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT ANDREW TRIKOI .......................................................................... 4TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules allows for the withdrawal of a suit at any stage of proceedings by a plaintifi. In this suit, the plaintifi took the option through a notice of withdrawal dated 19/6/2025. 2. The 1st defendant, who filed a memorandum of appearance dated 25/10/2025 and a replying afidavit to the application dated 12/3/2025, seeks the court’s argument that Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. The said arguments are captured in written submissions dated 29/4/2026. 3. The plaintifi relies on written submissions dated 27/4/2026, that the awarding of costs is at the discretion of the court, and that the circumstances of this matter show that the withdrawal was made in good faith, following a formal settlement of the underlying family dispute at the High Court, hence the award of costs could undermine that spirit of reconciliation already achieved by the family. 4. The plaintifi approached the court by a plaint accompanied by an application for temporary orders of injunction dated 12/3/2025 and 27/3/2025, whose ruling was delivered on 17/6/2025 without the defendants’ participation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3694/eng@2026-06-17 1
page 1 of 2
5. The 1st defendant only appeared in court through Mr. Nyamu, advocate, on 17/9/2025. The court record showed that Rashid Ngaira & Associates had been on record for the plaintifi and, by an application dated 27/3/2025, sought to cease acting for it. The court record does not show whether, by the time a notice to withdraw the suit on 19/6/2025, the firm of Oringe Waswa & Opany & Co. Advocates was properly on record for the plaintifi. 6. Be that as it may, the suit was marked withdrawn on 21/4/2025 under Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The purpose of costs is to compensate a party who has prosecuted or defended a suit. It is not aimed at punishing the adversary. The general rule under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is that costs follow the event. The person triggering the action ordinarily must meet the costs, unless there are legitimate reasons to depart from the same, as held in Rai & Others -vs- Rai & Others [2014] KESC 31 [KLR]. 7. All the parties in this suit are in agreement on the existence of Nairobi Milimani High Court P&A Cause No. 16 of 2018, which led to a mediation settlement in favour of all the beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased. 8. The 1st defendant in his replying afidavit, sworn on 25/10/2025, admits the existence of the succession cause and directions issued regarding an application dated 3/4/2025 to refer the matter to mediation. 9. The plaintifi has not been termed as a vexatious litigant or as one who brought a frivolous suit with the intention of abusing the court process. The court has a constitutional mandate to encourage and facilitate parties to use alternative means to settle matters out of court. 10. Referring matters to mediation and other alternative means should not be fettered by imposing costs, once a settlement is amicably reached, by any party. In this suit, the justification for why the defendants should be granted costs, yet they benefited from the settlement, is lacking. 11. The court finds legitimate reasons to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. Each party is ordered to bear their own costs. 12. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND SIGNED, VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026. HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. Ruling delivered via Microsoft Teams/Open Court at Kitale on this 17th day of June 2026. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Matui/Nancy Ms. Imata holding brief for Mr. Nyamu for the defendants/respondents N/A for the plaintifi/applicant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3694/eng@2026-06-17 2
page 2 of 2