Bedford v Mangi (Through his Attorney Christine Mukangi) & 8 others (Land Case Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8057 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed tribunals can order each side to pay their own costs, even when one party technically wins.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Tribunal erred in directing that each party bear its own costs despite the appellant's claim to be the successful party
Key legal issues
#Whether the Tribunal erred in denying the appellant costs despite his claim to be the successful party
The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's discretion on costs was properly exercised and not plainly wrong
Costs are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the discretion must be exercised judiciously. The appellant was not the sole victor: he was also a respondent before the Tribunal, had issued notices to alter sub-tenants' tenancies which he later withdrew or abandoned, and was not condemned to pay costs on account of those notices. The Tribunal had the dispute's long history in mind and expressly departed from the conventional Section 27 position. Under Mbogo v Shah and Mrao, interference is warranted only for misdirection, irrelevant considerations or a plainly wrong result, none of which was established.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion on costs unless the tribunal misdirected itself, took into account irrelevant factors, or arrived at a plainly wrong decision
- A successful litigant is ordinarily entitled to costs unless there are grounds militating against such award, but costs remain a matter of judicial discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is hereby dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Tribunal
- Mombasa BPRT Case No. 250 of 2020 (Lead File), consolidated with 4 other references
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Business Premises Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Business Premises) Act (appeal on costs order of the Tribunal)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Tribunal's costs order and substitution with an order awarding the appellant costs of the consolidated references
The court was not satisfied that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion on costs was plainly wrong or based on any misdirection in law or irrelevant factors
Costs of the appeal
To bring the matter to closure, each party to bear own costs of the appeal
Costs
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs of the appeal (the Tribunal's order that each party bear its own costs of the suit left undisturbed)
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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the court is not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in directing that each party shall bear its own costs. The court finds no merit in the appeal. As a consequence, the appellant's appeal is hereby dismissed.
In order to bring this matter to closure each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
the award of costs in an action or proceeding is at the discretion of the court. That is the import of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and case law. However, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.
Issues in the judgment
#Anomaly in filing dates: the 1st respondent's submissions are dated a year after the appellant's
The coram lists respondents 2nd to 29th at the conclusion but the body of the judgment refers to the 2nd to 9th respondents as the applicants
The judgment says the Tribunal framed 5 issues but lists six (a-f)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bedford v Mangi (Through his Attorney Christine Mukangi) & 8 others (Land Case Appeal E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (appeal from Mombasa BPRT Case No. 250 of 2020, Lead File). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8057/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.