Ruluti v Kamencu (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Lintari Ithiuki – Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3678 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a plaintiff to withdraw a land suit but ordered them to pay the defendant's costs under the Civil Procedure Act.
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 plaintiff's notice of withdrawal of the suit should be allowed
- 2.Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the suit notwithstanding the withdrawal
Key legal issues
#Withdrawal of suit
The court allowed the plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit where the defendant did not object, subject to costs.
Counsel for the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit by notice dated 10/6/2026. The defendant did not object to the withdrawal but sought costs on the ground that he had engaged an advocate to defend the claim and incurred costs. The court exercised its discretion to permit the withdrawal.
Costs upon withdrawal
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and no grounds justified departing from that principle; the plaintiff bears the costs.
The court applied the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event. Although the defendant insisted on costs because he had engaged an advocate and incurred costs, no proper grounds for departure from the general principle were demonstrated, so the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the withdrawn suit.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and departure from that general principle requires proper grounds to be demonstrated
Court orders
#- 1.The withdrawal of the suit is allowed and the suit is marked 'withdrawn'
- 2.The plaintiff is decreed to bear costs of the suit
- 3.The file shall be marked 'Case closed'
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (costs follow the event); inherent discretion on withdrawal of 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.
On costs, the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is that costs follow the event. No proper grounds have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle.
In the end, this suit is marked “withdrawn” and the plaintifi is decreed to bear costs of the suit. The file shall be marked “Case closed”.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of withdrawal notice appears as 10/6/2026 and delivery of judgment as 16 June 2026 - the judgment text is dated in the future relative to typical filing conventions; recorded as printed
The suit number and party names are not stated in the judgment extract; the parties are referred to only as 'plaintifi' and 'defendant'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruluti v Kamencu (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Lintari Ithiuki – Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3678/eng@2026-06-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.