https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3694
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court found legitimate reasons to depart from that rule because the suit was withdrawn after an amicable settlement tied to mediation in the parties’ succession dispute, none of the parties proved vexatious or frivolous conduct, and the defendants had benefited from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3694 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lois Holdings Limited (Suing Through its Director Pamela Karambu Kimbui); 1st Defendant: Douglas Gituma Kimbui; 2nd Defendant: Robert Chelabit; 3rd Defendant: Edward Kipngetich; 4th Defendant: Andrew Trikoi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case E010 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Notice of Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Suit withdrawn; costs not awarded to any party
- Judges
- ["CK Nzili"]
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Costs, Section 27 Civil Procedure Act, Order 25 Civil Procedure Rules, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Settlement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lois Holdings Limited (Suing Through its Director Pamela Karambu Kimbui)
Plaintiff
Douglas Gituma Kimbui
1st Defendant
Robert Chelabit
2nd Defendant
Edward Kipngetich
3rd Defendant
Andrew Trikoi
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Notice of Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the suit entitled the defendants to costs
- 2 Whether there were legitimate reasons to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event
Ratio Decidendi
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court found legitimate reasons to depart from that rule because the suit was withdrawn after an amicable settlement tied to mediation in the parties’ succession dispute, none of the parties proved vexatious or frivolous conduct, and the defendants had benefited from the settlement. Each party was therefore left to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
Suit withdrawn; costs not awarded to any party
Orders
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
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 plaintiff. In this suit, the plaintiff 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 affidavit 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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. 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff. 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 affidavit, 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 plaintiff 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. NZILIJUDGE, 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/NancyMs. Imata holding brief for Mr. Nyamu for the defendants/respondentsN/A for the plaintiff/applicant