Kinyenje (Suing on Behalf of Elias Kiautha Mputhia through the Power of Attorney) v Mwiti & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8479 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court removed Bank of Africa from a Meru land appeal but denied it legal costs against the appellants.
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 5th respondent/applicant should be removed from the appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant should be awarded costs against the appellants
Key legal issues
#Whether the 5th respondent should be removed from the appeal and whether costs should be awarded
The application was allowed in terms of prayer 1, removing the 5th respondent from the appeal, but no costs were awarded because the applicant was a necessary party to the appeal and counsel abandoned the costs plea.
The court noted that the applicant, Bank of Africa Limited, sought removal from the appeal plus costs. The appellants opposed only the costs prayer, and counsel for the applicant abandoned the quest for costs at the hearing. Because the applicant had been a party to the suit in the lower court and thus a necessary party to the appeal, the court declined to award costs while granting the removal order.
Legal principles established
#- A party to the suit in the lower court who is a necessary party to the appeal may be removed from the appeal without an award of costs in its favour.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9/6/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 1 (removal of the 5th respondent from the appeal)
- 2.No award of costs to the 5th respondent in this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower court (not named in the judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment extract
Relief refused
#Costs against the appellants
Counsel for the 5th respondent/applicant abandoned the quest for costs, and the applicant had been a necessary party to the appeal
Costs
No award of costs to the 5th respondent in this appeal
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.
In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons dated 9/6/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 1.
Noting that the 5th respondent was a party to the suit in the lower court and were therefore a necessary party to the appeal, there will be no award of costs to them in this appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment extract does not state the case number of the appeal or the application beyond its date (9/6/2025).
The names of the parties other than the 5th respondent are not identified; the court refers only to 'the appellants' and '1st - 4th Respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinyenje (Suing on Behalf of Elias Kiautha Mputhia through the Power of Attorney) v Mwiti & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8479 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8479/eng@2025-12-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.