[2016] KEELC 1143 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1143 (KLR)

The court accepted the Plaintiffs' application to withdraw the suit on the basis that the subject matter had been disposed of by sale to a third party, rendering the suit moot. In line with established legal principles, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Defendants, as they had been brought to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 1143 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: J.S. Muriu; Plaintiff: G.K. Ruria; Plaintiff: Rodnick Minns; Defendant: The Kikoy Company Ltd; Defendant: Tatu Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Jonny Mydland; Defendant: Morlanne Holdimann
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 507 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Withdrawal Before Hearing
Outcome
Suit withdrawn with costs to the Defendants.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Suit, Costs Award, Land Dispute, Third Party Sale
Source Language
en
Land and Property Withdrawal of Suit Costs Award Land Dispute Third Party Sale

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.S. Muriu

Plaintiff

G.K. Ruria

Plaintiff

Rodnick Minns

Plaintiff

The Kikoy Company Ltd

Defendant

Tatu Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Jonny Mydland

Defendant

Morlanne Holdimann

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Withdrawal Before Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be withdrawn following the sale of the subject land to a third party.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the Defendants upon withdrawal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the Plaintiffs' application to withdraw the suit on the basis that the subject matter had been disposed of by sale to a third party, rendering the suit moot. In line with established legal principles, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Defendants, as they had been brought to court and incurred expenses in defending the suit. The absence of the Defendants at the hearing did not preclude the award of costs, as the Plaintiffs had expressly conceded to such an order. The withdrawal was thus granted and costs awarded to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Suit withdrawn with costs to the Defendants.

Orders

  • The suit is marked as withdrawn.
  • Costs are awarded to the Defendants.