Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in extract

Boss v Registered Trustees Serve in Love Africa (SILA) Trust & others (Environment & Land Case 193 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 220 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
1,208 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court awarded a land buyer his legal costs after a seven-year dispute, but refused interest on his refunded Kshs.5 million because third parties, not the sellers, frustrated the deal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Makueni (E. O. Obaga, Judge, delivered 30 January 2025 via Microsoft Teams) resolved only the outstanding issues of costs and interest after the parties settled the suit. The Plaintiff had contracted to buy LR No. Kipsinende/Kipsinende Block 3 (Mosop 'A') 61 for Kshs.9,300,000, paying Kshs.5,000,000 on execution. The transaction was frustrated by a feud over who were the lawful trustees of the 1st Defendant; a deed of rescission and settlement was signed on 14 February 2017 with post-dated cheques that were all dishonoured. The Plaintiff sued for recovery of Kshs.5,000,000 on 8 May 2017, testified and closed his case on 8 November 2023, and by 18 September 2024 the Defendants confirmed the outstanding balance had been fully repaid, the Plaintiff having received Kshs.3,400,000 earlier. Costs and interest were left to the court. The Plaintiff, relying on Haraf Traders, Jasbir Singh Rai and Madison Insurance, sought costs and interest, invoking the principle that costs follow the event and section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendants asked that each party bear its own costs, citing a High Court petition finding that certain persons fraudulently registered themselves as trustees. The court held that no good reasons existed to depart from the principle that costs follow the event and awarded the Plaintiff costs. However, since the agreement was frustrated by third parties, interest was refused. The final order: costs of the suit to the Plaintiff only.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit
  2. 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the refunded sum

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs should follow the event where the suit was settled mid-hearing

Holding

Plaintiff entitled to costs; no good reasons to depart from the principle

Reasoning

The trust dispute frustrated the sale agreement, but the 2nd–4th Defendants committed to refund and the Plaintiff was forced to file suit, which remained pending over seven years. Settlement was only confirmed fully paid on 18 September 2024. The court found no good reason to displace the principle that costs follow the event, relying on Haraf Traders and Jasbir Singh Rai.

p. 3
02

Whether interest is payable on the refunded sum

Holding

Interest denied despite entitlement to costs

Reasoning

Although the Defendants held the Plaintiff's money from 19 January 2017 and repaid it in tranches at undisclosed dates, the underlying sale agreement was frustrated by a third-party dispute over trusteeship, not by the Defendants' fault. The court exercised discretion to withhold interest, awarding costs only.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event and departure requires good reasons
  • A plaintiff who lawfully pursued a remedy and obtained settlement is entitled to costs absent good reasons to depart

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
  2. 2.Interest denied; Plaintiff to have only costs of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit; costs and interest under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Relief refused

#

Interest on the refunded principal sum

The agreement was frustrated by third parties; the court declined to condemn the Defendants to pay interest

p. 3

Costs

Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

There are no good reasons as to why I should depart from the principle that costs follow the event. I therefore find that the Plaintifi is entitled to costs.
p. 3Costs follow the event
I will not condemn the Defendants to pay interest. I therefore direct that the Plaintifi shall only have costs of the suit.
p. 3Final orders - interest refused
Costs are (awarded at) the unfettered discretion of the court, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, but they must follow the event unless the court has good reason to order otherwise
p. 2Kuloba principle adopted

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal chronological inconsistency in repayment dates

minor

Later passage states a different date for the same payment

minor

Date of resolution of trusteeship dispute stated inconsistently

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Boss v Registered Trustees Serve in Love Africa (SILA) Trust & others (Environment & Land Case 193 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/220/eng@2025-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.