Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOther

Wanyoike v County Government of Laikipia & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 449 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2025
OMOnesmus N Makau
558 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a worker who wins through a settlement still deserves his legal costs, plus interest from the day he filed suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued after being removed from his office as a member of the County Public Service Board: his name was struck off the payroll, he stopped receiving Board meeting invitations, and his position was advertised, cutting short his six-year term without due process. The respondents admitted these actions but asserted they followed the claimant's own resignation. Before full hearing, the parties recorded a consent settlement obliging the respondents to reinstate the claimant to the payroll and to let him serve his full six-year term. Only the question of costs was left to the court. Both sides filed written submissions. The claimant argued that but for the suit his employment would have been unlawfully lost, so costs should be awarded; the respondents maintained that the removal followed his resignation and that, the suit having been compromised, no party should be condemned to pay costs. Judge Onesmus N Makau held that award of costs is discretionary, guided by factors including whether the suit was frivolous and whether it proceeded to full hearing. The consent settlement essentially went the way of the claimant's case, and the matter was litigated for about a year, distinguishing it from the Sonko case where an appeal was withdrawn before responses were filed. The claimant was therefore awarded costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing. The judgment was delivered via Teams with the parties' consent, waiving Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether or not the claimant should be awarded costs of the suit

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a claimant whose suit was settled by consent in his favour should be awarded costs

Holding

Yes; the consent settlement essentially went the way of the claimant's case, and the suit was not frivolous as it was litigated for about a year

Reasoning

The court distinguished withdrawal of an appeal before filing of responses. Here, pleadings were filed and litigation ran from October 2023 to September 2024, ending in a consent settlement that fully vindicated the claimant - reinstatement to the payroll without loss of emoluments and service of his full six-year term. A party who is forced to incur costs fighting for his employment should not be denied costs merely because the matter was compromised.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Award of costs of a suit is at the discretion of the court, exercisable upon certain factors including whether the suit is frivolous and whether it proceeded to full hearing
  • Where a consent settlement essentially accedes to a claimant's case, costs follow the events

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit

The bench

#

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

OM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Discretion of the court to award costs under the court's procedural framework (specific statutory provision not stated)

Relief refused

#

Respondents' contention that no one should pay costs since the suit was compromised

The consent settlement essentially went the way of the claimant's case, so costs followed the events

p. 2

Costs

Claimant awarded costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the 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.

Having considered all the facts of the case, I award him costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit.
p. 2Final orders - costs
I find that his case succeeded and as such costs should follow the events.
p. 2Costs follow the events
It is trite law that award of costs of a suit is at the discretion of the court.
p. 1Discretionary nature of costs

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment does not state the case number, the parties' names, or the neutral citation; the suit and parties are described generically.

minor

The specific statutory or rules provision conferring the costs discretion is not cited; only the ELRC Procedure Rules delivery provision is referenced.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanyoike v County Government of Laikipia & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/449/eng@2025-02-20

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