[2023] KEELC 20647 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 20647 (KLR)

The court found that the lower court had already determined the issue of costs, awarding costs to the first Third Party (now the 2nd respondent) and not to the second third party (now the 3rd respondent). The appellate court saw no reason to depart from this approach. Therefore, only the 2nd respondent was entitled...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 20647 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kabeho Housing Co Ltd; Respondent: George Gitau Mbugua; Respondent: SLMH Muhia t/a Slmh Muhia & Co Advocate; Respondent: David Njau Wakio t/a Milano Commercial Agencies
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 6 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal as Against 2nd and 3rd Respondents
Outcome
Costs of the withdrawn appeal awarded to the 2nd respondent only; 3rd respondent to bear own costs.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Costs Award on Withdrawal, Counterclaim Procedure, Third Party Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Costs Award on Withdrawal Counterclaim Procedure Third Party Proceedings

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabeho Housing Co Ltd

Appellant

George Gitau Mbugua

Respondent

SLMH Muhia t/a Slmh Muhia & Co Advocate

Respondent

David Njau Wakio t/a Milano Commercial Agencies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal as Against 2nd and 3rd Respondents

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the withdrawn appeal as between the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the lower court's decision on costs should guide the appellate court in awarding costs after withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the lower court had already determined the issue of costs, awarding costs to the first Third Party (now the 2nd respondent) and not to the second third party (now the 3rd respondent). The appellate court saw no reason to depart from this approach. Therefore, only the 2nd respondent was entitled to costs of the withdrawn appeal, while the 3rd respondent would bear its own costs. The court emphasized that the structure of the pleadings and the outcome in the lower court should guide the allocation of costs in the appellate proceedings, especially where the appeal is withdrawn as against certain parties.

Court Disposition

Costs of the withdrawn appeal awarded to the 2nd respondent only; 3rd respondent to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent is awarded the costs of the withdrawn appeal.
  • The 3rd respondent will bear its own costs of the withdrawn appeal.