Ngaruiya & 2 others v Land Registrar Kwale & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2748 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered KRA to pay full legal costs with interest after it withdrew a property restriction only once litigation had already started.
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 Plaintiffs were legitimately aggrieved by the restriction placed on L.R. Kwale/Diani Beach Block/2144 by the 3rd Defendant
- 2.Whether the withdrawal of the restriction during the pendency of the suit constitutes the 'event' contemplated under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 thereby entitling the Plaintiffs to costs
- 3.Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Court should exercise its discretion to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the suit, and whether interest on costs is payable under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs were legitimately aggrieved by the KRA restriction
Yes. The Plaintiffs purchased and registered the property after due diligence; the restriction was lodged without notice a week after transfer and withdrawn only during the suit, so their grievance was genuine and legitimate.
The Court found the facts undisputed: an official search on 11th October 2024 showed the property free of encumbrances; transfer occurred on 20th November 2024; the restriction was lodged on 27th November 2024 and discovered on 28th November 2024. Relying on the Land Registration Act (ss. 71-78) and case law on wrongful cautions, the Court held that revenue-preservation measures must be proportionate and with due regard to third parties, and that the restriction was imposed without affording the Plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard.
Whether the withdrawal of the restriction during the pendency of the suit is the 'event' under Section 27(1)
Yes. The 'event' is not limited to a formal judgment; the withdrawal vindicated the Plaintiffs' grievance and effectively granted the relief sought, entitling them to costs.
The Court held that 'event' under Section 27(1) encompasses the outcome or result of litigation, including settlement or conduct of parties that vindicates one side's position, per Jasbir Singh Rai and Joseph Oduor Anode. Since the 3rd Defendant withdrew the restriction only during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs obtained the relief sought without formal judgment, and their grievance was vindicated by the Defendant's conduct.
Whether the Court should depart from the general principle that costs follow the event
No. There was no good reason to depart; the Plaintiffs acted reasonably and denial of costs would punish them for seeking judicial redress against an arbitrary administrative act.
The Court noted the discretion under Section 27(1) must be exercised judicially and departure is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. The 3rd Defendant's argument that no party was a successful litigant failed because the matter was resolved only through the Plaintiffs' justified litigation. Fairness dictated the Plaintiffs should not bear costs necessitated by the Defendant's conduct; holding otherwise would encourage arbitrary administrative actions without consequence.
Who bears the costs and whether interest is payable under Section 27(2)
The 3rd Defendant (KRA) bears the costs; interest is payable at court rates from taxation until payment in full, not the statutory maximum of 14%.
Section 27(2) empowers the Court to give interest on costs at up to 14% per annum. Interest on costs is discretionary, not automatic, and awarded to ensure the successful party is not prejudiced by delay. Although the Plaintiffs were kept out of enjoyment of their property rights, the matter was resolved without protracted trial, so court rates suffice to meet the ends of justice.
Legal principles established
#- The withdrawal of the restriction impugned in a suit during the pendency of the suit constitutes the 'event' under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act entitling the plaintiff to costs.
- Departure from the principle that costs follow the event requires good reason recorded; deviation without reasons is an arbitrary exercise of discretion.
- A restriction lodged without prior notice and withdrawn only after litigation commences interferes with a registered proprietor's rights and necessitating judicial intervention, warranting costs against the authority imposing it.
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the Plaintiffs were legitimately aggrieved by the restriction placed on L.R. Kwale/Diani Beach Block/2144 by the 3rd Defendant
- 2.A finding that the withdrawal of the restriction during the pendency of the suit constitutes the 'event' contemplated under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
- 3.A finding that there exists no good reason to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event
- 4.That the Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit, borne exclusively by the 3rd Defendant, Kenya Revenue Authority
- 5.That interest on costs shall be payable at court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full, pursuant to Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 27(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 (costs of first-instance suit)
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.
That accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of this suit, which shall be borne exclusively by the 3rd Defendant, Kenya Revenue Authority, whose conduct necessitated the institution of proceedings.
That interest on costs shall be payable at court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full, pursuant to Section 27 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 to ensure that the Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by delay in reimbursement.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the withdrawal of the restriction during the pendency of the suit constitutes the “event” contemplated under Section 27(1). The Plaintiffs, having been compelled to litigate to secure their rights, are entitled to costs against the 3rd Defendant.
The lodging of a restriction without prior notice, and its withdrawal only after litigation commenced, clearly interfered with their proprietary rights and necessitated judicial intervention.
The Court notes that while the 3rd Defendant has statutory authority under the Tax Procedures Act and related revenue laws to secure unpaid taxes, such measures must be exercised proportionately and with due regard to the rights of third parties.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the official search confirming the property was free of encumbrances was issued on '11th October, 2014' although the application and payment were on 8th October 2024; the year 2014 appears to be a typographical error for 2024.
The judgment refers to the Court's directions of '24th February, 2026' when framing issues, but earlier records that the Court on 11th March, 2026 directed written submissions and a ruling date was reserved on 24th April, 2026.
The judgment contains a typographical error rendering the Plaintiffs' names ('Plaintiffs w6ere legitimately aggrieved').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngaruiya & 2 others v Land Registrar Kwale & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2748 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (suit of 25th April 2025, Environment and Land Court, Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2748/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.