Maina v Gichia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1243 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado dismissed a challenge to a costs award, confirming that in Kenya the winning party in a land dispute is normally paid costs.
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 appeal is merited in seeking a variation of the Learned Magistrate's order on costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial magistrate's award of costs should be varied on appeal
The appeal fails; the magistrate exercised discretion judicially in awarding costs to the successful party
The trial court made a definitive finding that the Respondent proved his claim over Plot 121. Costs followed the event as the statutory default. The appellant failed to show misdirection, wrong principles, or a plainly wrong decision. The emergence of survey evidence during litigation is not 'good reason' to deny a successful party costs, and costs could not be shifted to the Interested Party absent a finding of liability.
Whether the Interested Party should bear the costs as the cause of the dispute
No - costs could not be shifted absent a trial court finding of liability against the Interested Party
The trial court made no finding of liability against the Interested Party. Without a specific determination that the Interested Party's conduct was the proximate and legal cause of loss, an appellate court cannot shift the burden of costs.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise; a successful litigant compelled to vindicate proprietary rights is entitled to costs even where the dispute turns on survey evidence clarified during proceedings.
- An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary award unless the court below acted on wrong principles, failed to consider relevant factors, or reached a plainly wrong decision occasioning injustice.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The order of the Chief Magistrate awarding costs of the suit to the Respondent is upheld
- 3.The Respondent shall have the costs of this appeal against the Appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Kajiado (Environment and Land Court)
- Kajiado CM ELC No. 66 of 2007
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land Court) appeal
Relief refused
#Setting aside/variation of the trial court's award of costs to the Respondent
The Magistrate exercised discretion judicially under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the threshold for appellate interference in Mbogo v Shah was not met
Order that the County Government of Kajiado (Interested Party) bear the costs
No finding of liability against the Interested Party by the trial court
Costs
The Respondent shall have the costs of this appeal against the Appellant; the order of the Chief Magistrate awarding costs of the suit to the Respondent is upheld.
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.
Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
The order of the Chief Magistrate awarding costs of the suit to the Respondent is upheld. The Respondent shall also have the costs of this appeal against the Appellant.
the award of costs is a discretionary power vested in the trial court. However, such discretion must be exercised judiciously, upon sound reasoning, and in accordance with the settled principle that costs ordinarily follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise.
The fact that the court relied on survey evidence to resolve the dispute does not negate the reality that the Respondent was compelled to come to court to vindicate his proprietary rights and ultimately succeeded.
Issues in the judgment
#Magistrate's name spelled inconsistently within the judgment (Oganyo vs Aganyo)
Appellant's memorandum dated 22 February 2024 though appeal concerns only costs of a judgment of 1 February 2024; also paragraph 8 states the magistrate observed the appeal concerns only costs yet the memorandum sought setting aside/varied orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Gichia & another (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1243 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kajiado CM ELC Appeal (arising from Kajiado CM ELC No. 66 of 2007). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1243/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.