[2010] KEHC 1848 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Order XX Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent's affidavit merely stated his alleged income without any supporting documentary evidence such as bank statements or accounts from his medical practice. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1848 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dr. Ali Wario; Respondent: Dr. John Ngo’ndu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 28 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Payment of Taxed Costs by Instalments
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Payment by Instalments, Taxation of Costs, Defamation Awards
- 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
Dr. Ali Wario
Appellant
Dr. John Ngo’ndu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Payment of Taxed Costs by Instalments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant payment of taxed costs by monthly instalments under Order XX Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the respondent has provided adequate evidence of inability to pay the taxed costs in full.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Order XX Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent's affidavit merely stated his alleged income without any supporting documentary evidence such as bank statements or accounts from his medical practice. The court held that bare assertions of financial incapacity are insufficient to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of payment by instalments. Furthermore, the respondent had not made any payment towards the taxed costs since the ruling on the reference, indicating lack of good faith. Consequently, the application to pay the taxed costs by monthly instalments was dismissed for...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 5th October 2009 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL APPEAL 28 OF 2003
DR. ALI WARIO ...................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
DR. JOHN NGO’NDU ............................. RESPONDENT
RULING
The judgment in this appeal was delivered on 27th July 2005 whereby the appellant succeeded to have the lower court judgment in favour of the respondent set aside.The respondent by a decree of the lower court in CMCCMeru No. 567 of 1994 of 24th April 2003 obtained judgment for Kshs. 200,000/= being an award in general damages for defamation.The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.The Deputy Registrar of this court taxed the appeal costs at Kshs. 176,063/= on 5th May 2008 in favour of the appellant.The respondent filed a reference against those costs.The ruling of that reference was delivered by this court on 25th September 2009 whereby the court ruled that the appellant’s costs be taxed at Kshs. 144,480/=.The respondent filed a Chamber Summons dated 5th October 2009 which is the subject of this ruling.That application is brought under order XX Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.By that application, the respondent seeks to be allowed to liquidate the tax costs by monthly instalment of Kshs. 10,000/=.In support of that application the respondent stated that he has a private practice as a doctor in Meru.That his practice was affected by the appellant’s defamation which lead to its closure from the year 2004 up to the year 2008 December.The respondent stated that he earns between Kshs. 25,000/= to Kshs. 30,000/= which amount he said he uses for up keep of his family and for payment of bills.He said that he had no other business and consequently, he was unable to raise the whole amount of the taxed costs.He finally stated that there was still a pending case between him and the appellant being HCC No. 164 of 2000. The appellant’s learned counsel Mr. Nyamu Nyaga relied on the replying affidavit of the appellant and on the maxim of equity to oppose the application.In the replying affidavit the appellant denied that the respondent has been defamed as alleged.Further, that the proposal of the respondent to pay costs by monthly instalment of Kshs. 10,000/= would translate to the respondent taking 15 months to settle those costs.The appellant deponed that the respondent is known to him and that he is financially endowed with enormous financial base which he could use to pay the taxed costs.Order XX Rule 11 which the respondent relied upon is in the following terms:-
“11 (2) After passing of any such decree, the court may on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder or without the consent of the decree-holder for sufficient cause shown order that the payment of the amount decreed bepostponed or be made by instalments onsuch terms as to the payment of interest, the attachment of the property of the judgmentdebtor or the taking of security from him, or otherwise, as it thinks fit.”
As can be seen from that Rule, the court has discretion on whether or not to order payment by instalments.The respondent had a burden to prove that he deserves to have the court exercise that discretion in his favour.The respondent in his affidavit in support of his application merely remarked of his inability to pay the costs.He alleged that his income was between Kshs. 25,000/= and Kshs. 30,000/=.The respondent did not attach any bank account or any other account of his practice to prove how much he earns.The bare statement in his affidavit of how much he earns does not suffice for Rule 11. The amount of money he makes was the only basis upon which the respondent sought to pay the taxed costs by instalment.Having failed to prove his earnings, the application cannot succeed and is dismissed.I also find that the respondent in making the present application did not do so in good faith.This is because even though the court ruled on the 25th September 2009 on how much costs he was to pay the appellant, todate the respondent has not made one single payment of the amount offered by instalments.In the end, the Chamber Summons dated 5th October 2009 is found to have no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs being awarded to the appellant.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 26th day of July 2010.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE