Kananu v Rimberia (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 6217 (KLR) (5 October 2026) (Ruling)
The bottom line
#Withdrawing a land case in Kenya does not shield you from paying the other side's legal costs once they have already defended the suit.
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- 1.Whether the suit should be marked withdrawn following the notice of withdrawal
- 2.Whether the plaintiff's plea for withdrawal with no order as to costs should be allowed, or whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to costs upon withdrawal of a suit
Where the defendant has entered appearance and filed responses, withdrawal of the suit does not displace the costs-follow-the-event principle; the defendant is awarded costs
The court applied Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Jasbir Singh Rai decision that costs follow the event. The defendant had instructed a law firm which entered appearance by memorandum dated 8/9/2025 and filed responses to both the originating summons and the notice of motion, thereby incurring legal costs he is obligated to pay. It would be unfair to make him bear those costs, so the plea for no order as to costs was rejected.
Legal principles established
#- The general principle on costs is that they follow the event, subject to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- A defendant who has entered appearance and filed responses before withdrawal of a suit is entitled to the costs incurred
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked 'Withdrawn'
- 2.Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant/respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over an environmental and land originating summons; costs governed by Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Plaintiff's oral plea that the suit be marked 'withdrawn with no order as to costs'
The defendant had entered appearance and filed responses through instructed counsel, thereby incurring legal costs; it would be unfair to make him bear them
Costs
Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant/respondent.
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 general principle on costs is that, they follow the event [See Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [2014] eKLR].
In the end, this suit is marked “Withdrawn”. Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant/respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronology inconsistency: appearance dated 8/9/2025 described as subsequent to notice of motion dated 9/9/2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kananu v Rimberia (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 6217 (KLR) (5 October 2026) (Ruling)", Case Analysis (2026). Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6217/eng@2026-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.