Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Akura (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E051 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3334 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to award a man legal costs after he was paid his judgment money, ruling the court process was largely procedural.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who should bear costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Who should bear costs of a judicial review suit for mandamus that was settled upon payment of the decretal sum
Each party bears their own costs; despite the general principle that costs follow the event, the court's discretion, exercised judiciously, justified withholding costs given that the Applicant was already paid, payment came within six months of service, and the motion was procedural and unopposed
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act makes costs discretionary, with costs following the event absent good reason otherwise. The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Rai and the Court of Appeal's decision in Gullet that discretion must be exercised judiciously and costs withheld from a successful party only for good cause. Here the Applicant had been paid the Kshs.50,000/= decretal sum during the pendency of the suit, the costs from the underlying Miscellaneous Cause had been paid, payment occurred within six months of service of the Certificate of Order, and the mandamus was a procedural step rather than a contested suit causing prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Costs of and incidental to all suits are at the discretion of the court and follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
- A court can only withhold costs partially or wholly from a successful party for good cause shown
- Where a party seeks costs against a government agency, they must first apply for a writ of mandamus
Court orders
#- 1.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Leave granted on 9th October 2025 to file a substantive motion for mandamus (judicial review under the Civil Procedure and Government Proceedings regimes); costs under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Costs of the suit awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant
The Ex-Parte Applicant had already been paid the decretal sum (and costs from the underlying Miscellaneous Cause); payment was made within six months of service; the motion was procedural and unopposed; no prejudice shown
Costs
Each party bears their 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.
Based on the facts as presented while associating myself with the decisions cited, noting that the instant application was not opposed, and that the Ex parte Applicant was already paid, I direct that each party bears their own costs.
I hence find that this motion was more of a procedural issue and there is no indication that the Ex parte Applicant suffered any prejudice.
The claims of the public interest will be a relevant factor, in the exercise of such discretion, as will also be the motivations and conduct of the parties, prior-to, during, and subsequent-to the actual process of litigation
a Court can only withhold costs either partially or wholly from a successful party for good cause to be shown
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the underlying Miscellaneous Cause (Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Civil Application No. E173 of 2024) is identified
The judgment does not name the parties or the 1st and 2nd Respondents by name; it refers only to 'the Ex parte Applicant' and 'the Respondents'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Akura (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E051 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (arising from a judicial review suit; underlying award in Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Civil Application No. E173 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3334/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.