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

Khamala (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Khwale Okomoli - Deceased) & another v Khwale & 11 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1152 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 February 2026
ANA. NYUKURI
588 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to award legal costs in a sibling land dispute settled out of court, making each side pay its own legal bills.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance determination on costs by the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega following the settlement of a land dispute between siblings. The parties had, by consent dated 26th November 2025 and adopted on 4th February 2026, settled all substantive matters in a suit filed on 13th April 2023, in which the plaintiffs sought declaratory orders that the process creating new numbers from parcel No. E Wanga/Isongo/766 was unlawful, cancellation of the resulting titles, and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The consent left only the question of costs to the court. The plaintiffs, through submissions dated 10th February 2026, relied on section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, arguing that costs follow the event and that the defendants' intransigence, and their attempt to disinherit their female siblings, justified an award of costs, citing Roche v John Odhiambo Cyprian Laura Roche & Another. The defendants filed no submissions. Judge A. Nyukuri held that although costs lie at the court's discretion, the matter had been settled before confirmation for hearing and the parties were siblings; the dispute was not one for settling scores on the basis of gender. The court accordingly ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether costs should be awarded to the plaintiffs following settlement of the suit by consent

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether costs should be awarded to the plaintiffs

Holding

Costs were refused; each party was ordered to bear its own costs

Reasoning

The suit, which sought declaratory orders, cancellation of titles and a permanent injunction over parcel No. E Wanga/Isongo/766, was settled by consent dated 26th November 2025 before confirmation for hearing. The parties are siblings, and the court held the matter should not be treated as a gender-based score-settling exercise. Although section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court discretion that costs follow the event, the court exercised that discretion to deny costs in light of the family relationship and the consensual settlement.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs are awarded at the court's discretion and follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; in family disputes settled by consent the court may order each party to bear its own costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Each party to bear its own costs

The bench

#

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

AN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (discretion to award costs)

Relief refused

#

Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs

The court declined to award costs because the matter was settled by consent between siblings before hearing and was not a gender-based dispute

p. 2

Costs

Each party shall bear its own costs

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.

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs are awarded at the court’s discretion and that they should follow the event.
p. 2Discretion to award costs
For those reasons, I order that each party shall bear its own costs.
p. 2Final orders on costs
It is therefore clear that this matter was settled before it was confirmed for hearing.
p. 2Settlement by consent before hearing

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment does not state the case number of the suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khamala (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Khwale Okomoli - Deceased) & another v Khwale & 11 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1152/eng@2026-02-25

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