Bella Hill Management Ltd v Vipingo Development PLC (Environment and Land Case E38 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 717 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court refused to change its costs decision, confirming that late-filed legal submissions don't have to be considered and don't justify a review.
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 ruling of 8/4/2025 on costs contained an error on the face of the record warranting review
- 2.Whether the defendant was condemned unheard because its late submissions were not considered
- 3.Whether submissions are mandatory before a court determines costs
Key legal issues
#Whether submissions are mandatory before determination of costs
Submissions are not mandatory; the court's discretion under Section 27 CPA is unfettered and it may decide costs from the file record alone
The court relied on Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi, noting many cases are decided without submissions. Costs are governed by the discretionary power in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the entire file record was before the court, which considered all relevant factors and gave a reasoned judgment without the need for submissions.
Whether the defendant established an error on the face of the record warranting review
No error on the face of the record was established; since submissions are not mandatory, the court's failure to consider the defendant's late submissions was not an error
The applicant filed submissions 7 days after the deadline and only 1 day before the impugned ruling. The court found that a party cannot file late submissions and then seek review on the ground they were not considered. Since submissions were not required, the alleged omission was not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Limits of the court's review jurisdiction
Review is available only for error on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter; a court cannot sit on appeal on its own decision
The court held that having proffered its reasoning, it is not open to it to revisit its decision unless the statutory grounds for review exist. Absent those grounds, revisiting the ruling would amount to an impermissible appeal against its own decision, which the law does not allow.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions are not mandatory in every case; a court may determine costs on the record and under its unfettered discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- A court cannot revisit its own reasoned decision absent an error on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter of evidence; otherwise it would be sitting on appeal on its own decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18/7/2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act on costs
Relief refused
#Review of the ruling of 8/4/2025 setting aside the order that costs be borne by the Defendant and substituting an order that each party bear their own costs
No error on the face of the record established; submissions are not mandatory; the court would be sitting on appeal on its own decision without the jurisdictional grounds in Order 45 Rule 1
Costs
The application dated 18/7/2025 is dismissed with costs 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.
The upshot is that the application dated 18/7/2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
it is not mandatory for submissions to be called for in issues regarding costs. The entire file record is before the court and the discretion allowed in Section 27 of the CPA is unfettered.
Without any error on the face of the record or discovery of any new or important matter of evidence within the meaning of Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rule, this court would in efiect lack jurisdiction to revisit the ruling
As a matter of general principle, costs follow the event and the successful party will always have costs of his success unless the court has good reason to order otherwise.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronological anomalies in the judgment: the motion dated 18/7/2025 is opposed by submissions dated 5/12/2025 and 19/12/2025, both after the stated date, and judgment is delivered 11/2/2026; also the impugned ruling is dated 8/4/2025 while submissions deadline was 31/3/25
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bella Hill Management Ltd v Vipingo Development PLC (Environment and Land Case E38 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract (application dated 18/7/2025 in the principal suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/717/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.