[2007] KEHC 3531 (KLR)
The court found that the suit was no longer maintainable because the plaintiff's trading licence, which formed the basis of the suit, had expired. The court exercised its discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to order that each party bear its own costs, noting that the plaintiff was not at fault...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3531 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Albert Kiruthi Mukabi (T/a Pipeline Hardware); Defendant: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 862 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit and Costs
- Outcome
- Suit struck out; each party to bear its own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Striking Out Suit, Discretion of Court, Expiry of Licence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Albert Kiruthi Mukabi (T/a Pipeline Hardware)
Plaintiff
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be struck out due to the expiry of the plaintiff's trading licence.
- 2 Who should bear the costs of the suit after the suit has become spent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit was no longer maintainable because the plaintiff's trading licence, which formed the basis of the suit, had expired. The court exercised its discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to order that each party bear its own costs, noting that the plaintiff was not at fault for the expiry of the licence before the suit could be heard and determined. The court emphasized that the suit was not frivolous at the time of filing and that the delay was due to the court's workload, not the plaintiff's actions. Therefore, it would not be just for the defendant, who had not even filed a defence, to benefit by being awarded costs.
Court Disposition
Suit struck out; each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- This suit be and is hereby struck out.
- Each party to bear its own costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 862 of 2004
ALBERT KIRUTHI MUKABI(T/a PIPELINE HARDWARE)...PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI ..............................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
It is conceded by the Plaintiff’s learned counsel that this suit can no longer be maintained. This is because of the expiry of the Plaintiff’s trading licence on or about the 31st December, 2004 upon which the suit was based. The licence was issued by the Defendant. With the expiry of the licence, the suit has been overtaken by that event and become spent. The suit is therefore liable to be struck out.
The only issue in dispute is what order for costs should be made. The Plaintiff says that it is not his fault that the suit has now become spent. When he filed it, the cause of action was very much alive, and the court felt confident enough to grant temporary orders of injunction upon the suit. In his view therefore, each party should bear its own costs of the suit. The Defendant on the other hand says that costs follow the event; therefore it should be awarded costs of this suit.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels. Under section 27 (1) of the Civil procedure Act, Cap. 21, costs are entirely at the discretion of the court. However, under the proviso to that subsection, costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall, for good reason, otherwise order. I hold that there is good reason here to order otherwise. When the Plaintiff filed his suit on 6th August, 2004 the cause of action was alive. It was not a frivolous suit, and he was able to get temporary relief. Given the heavy workload in our courts, it was unlikely that the suit could be heard and disposed of by 31st December, 2004 when the substratum thereof, that is the Plaintiff’s trading licence, was due to expire. It is thus not the Plaintiff’s fault at all that his licence expired before his suit could be heard and determined. It would therefore not be just that the Defendant, who has not even filed defence, should benefit from this fact. I will therefore allow in part the application by chamber summons dated 5th March, 2007 and order as follows:-
1. This suit be and is hereby struck out.
2. Each party to bear its own costs of the suit.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007