[2019] KEELC 3341 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3341 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant's claim of not being served with notice prior to the suit was incorrect, as evidence showed a demand notice was issued by the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that costs are discretionary and must be determined based on the specific circumstances, including the relationship of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3341 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Ndegwa Munga; Plaintiff: Munga Ndegwa Kadzango; Plaintiff: Anderson Nzaka Muta; Plaintiff: Cephus Kassim Fondo; Defendant: Gideon Ngaoh Gundu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 204 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment
Outcome
Defendant's application for costs dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Consent Judgment, Notice to Sue, Family Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Costs Award Consent Judgment Notice to Sue Family Land Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Ndegwa Munga

Plaintiff

Munga Ndegwa Kadzango

Plaintiff

Anderson Nzaka Muta

Plaintiff

Cephus Kassim Fondo

Plaintiff

Gideon Ngaoh Gundu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be awarded costs of the suit after settlement by consent.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' suit was premature or unnecessary due to lack of notice to the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's claim of not being served with notice prior to the suit was incorrect, as evidence showed a demand notice was issued by the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that costs are discretionary and must be determined based on the specific circumstances, including the relationship of the parties and the nature of the consent settlement. Given that the parties are family members and the suit was not premature or unnecessary, the court held that the appropriate order was for each party to bear their own costs. The defendant's application for costs was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for costs dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Notice of motion dated 8th June 2018 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.