Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment (plaint dated 24/2/2026)

Fave Gas Oil K Ltd v Meru County Investment & Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3805 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 June 2026
1,485 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court denied defendants costs of a withdrawn lease suit because they never served their filed documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of a lease agreement dated 25/2/2021 over a parcel described as PDP/167/2016/01, seeking a declaration of breach and a permanent injunction, and filed a notice of motion dated 24/2/2026 seeking interlocutory injunctive orders. On 28/4/2026 counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement and that she had instructions to withdraw the suit with no order as to costs; defence counsel sought time to take instructions. On 12/5/2026 the plaintiff orally applied to withdraw the suit; the defendants acceded but demanded costs. The court marked the suit withdrawn and reserved costs for determination on affidavit evidence and submissions. The plaintiff filed an affidavit contending that the defendants were disentitled to costs because they had served no filings; the defendants relied on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (costs follow the event) and Order 25 rule 3, while conceding they had not served their preliminary objection (filed 12/3/2026) or their memorandum of appearance (filed 28/4/2026). The court held that the preliminary objection was filed by counsel not on record and was a nullity incapable of founding a costs award, and that the defendants, by electing not to serve the only two documents they relied on, denied themselves any entitlement to costs. Applying the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Jasbir Singh Rai that costs compensate rather than penalize, the court found the defendants not entitled to costs and marked the suit "Withdrawn with no order as to costs".

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the defendants are entitled to an award of costs of the suit withdrawn by the plaintiff

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defendants were entitled to costs of a suit withdrawn without notice

Holding

The defendants were not entitled to costs because they failed to serve their memorandum of appearance and preliminary objection on the plaintiff; costs were refused despite the general principle that costs follow the event

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act makes costs discretionary and provides that costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. Here the defendants filed a preliminary objection without being on record and filed a memorandum of appearance only on the morning of the withdrawal, and never served either document. The preliminary objection was a nullity filed by a stranger to the record. The court exercised its discretion to deny costs for these reasons.

p. 3
02

Whether the unfiled/unsworn alleged affidavit of the defendants dated 15/6/2026 was before the court

Holding

The court noted that no affidavit dated 15/6/2026 was reflected in the Case Tracking System and therefore only the plaintiff's affidavit was considered

Reasoning

Counsel for the defendants claimed in oral submissions that they had filed an affidavit dated 15/6/2026, but the court verified the Case Tracking System and found no such affidavit on record. The ruling on costs therefore proceeded on the plaintiff's affidavit alone and the defendants' rival submissions.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who fails to serve documents they rely on to claim costs denies themselves the entitlement to costs
  • A preliminary objection filed by counsel not on record, without a notice of appointment or memorandum of appearance, is incompetent and cannot found an award of costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Suit marked "Withdrawn with no order as to costs"

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a lease/land dispute; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited as the basis of jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Defendants' claim for costs of the withdrawn suit

The defendants filed their only two documents (preliminary objection and memorandum of appearance) but never served them on the plaintiff, denying themselves an entitlement to costs

p. 3

Costs

No order as to costs - suit marked "Withdrawn with no order as to 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.

The result is that this suit is marked "Withdrawn with no order as to costs".
p. 3final orders/disposition
the court takes the view that the defendants denied themselves the entitlement to costs by failing to serve their filed documents [memorandum of appearance and preliminary objection].
p. 3denial of costs for non-service
It was a document that had been filed by an advocate who was not on record at the time; it was filed by a stranger.
p. 3preliminary objection filed without being on record
costs follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.
general principle on costs - Section 27 Civil Procedure Act

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal date inconsistency: the mention before withdrawal is recorded as 12/5/2025 in one paragraph and 12/5/2026 elsewhere

minor

Plaint describes the parcel as relating to PDP/167/2016/01 while the lease is dated 25/2/2021; the description is as recorded and unverified within the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fave Gas Oil K Ltd v Meru County Investment & Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3805 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 24/2/2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3805/eng@2026-06-18

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