[2017] KEELC 1091 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1091 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were resolved in his favour through the consent judgment and the land registrar's report, which settled the boundary dispute. The court considered the duration of the proceedings and the defendant's opposition to the application. Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1091 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: David Muriuki Kiugu; Defendant: Alex Mureithi Naaman
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 65 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Dispute / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit and the application, with interest at court rates from the date of the ruling.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Costs Award, Consent Judgment
Source Language
en
Land and Property Boundary Disputes Costs Award Consent Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Muriuki Kiugu

Plaintiff

Alex Mureithi Naaman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Dispute / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit and the application dated 30.10.15.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should bear the costs following the consent judgment and resolution of the boundary dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were resolved in his favour through the consent judgment and the land registrar's report, which settled the boundary dispute. The court considered the duration of the proceedings and the defendant's opposition to the application. Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that costs generally follow the event, and there was no reason to depart from this principle. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the suit and the application, with interest at court rates from the date of the ruling.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit and the application, with interest at court rates from the date of the ruling.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs in the application dated 30.10.15.