Dancan & 11 others v Amoth & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1111 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Siaya Environment and Land Court refused to halt a land suit over unpaid costs because a prior court order already protecting those costs made the application pointless.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be stayed or struck out for non-payment of taxed costs in the discontinued lower court suit (MCELC/21/2019)
The application was refused; it is overtaken by events because the court had on 18/12/2025 in ELCLA/025/2025 ordered a stay of execution and a deposit of Kshs. 349,235 into court, which secures the taxed costs
The court accepted that the prior suit was discontinued for want of jurisdiction, that the parties and prayers are the same, and that the taxed costs of Kshs. 349,235 remain unsettled. It was persuaded by the authorities cited under Order 25 Rule 4. However, the earlier ruling of 18/12/2025 in the related appeal already secured the costs by ordering a deposit into court, so the relief sought would contradict the court's own orders. The present suit concerns substantive merits unrelated to execution, and two appeals on the costs remain pending.
Whether the Plaintiffs are in contempt for failing to pay taxed costs and therefore lack audience
The court declined to impute criminality; an allegation of criminal conduct should be pursued in the proper forum
The respondents deponed that the taxation was flawed and founded on criminal activity. The court rejected this framing, holding that criminality cannot be imputed on the other party in this manner and that a party who feels strongly about such allegations knows the correct forum to adjudicate them. The court did not find the plaintiffs in contempt or deny them audience, and noted that the decretal sums are the subject of pending appeals.
Legal principles established
#- Where a prior suit was discontinued for want of jurisdiction and a subsequent suit is brought on the same cause of action, the court may stay the subsequent suit until the costs of the discontinued suit are paid (Order 25 Rule 4), but the discretion is exercised on the merits and circumstances of each case
- Where a court has already made orders securing the taxed costs (deposit into court pending appeal), a fresh application to stay/strike out for non-payment of those costs is overtaken by events and would contradict the earlier orders
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13/05/2025 is overtaken by events and shall be treated as such in view of the orders issued on 18/12/2025 in ELCLA/025/2025
- On appeal from
- null — first-instance application; related appeals pending before the same court
- ELCLA/025/2025 (related, not the subject of this ruling)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 25 Rule 4 and Order 26 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dancan & 11 others v Amoth & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 13/05/2025 (ELC Suit, Siaya) arising from MCELC/21/2019 and Appeal No. ELCLA/025/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1111/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.