[2024] KEHC 1264 (KLR)
The court held that the omission to award costs in the judgment does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reasoned that the award of costs is a discretionary matter, and any alleged error in the exercise of that discretion is a question of law that should be addressed through an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1264 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: AM (Suing Through Next Friend and Father JA); Respondent: Michael Muema Kimilu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 107 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Face of Record, Award of Costs, Discretion of Court
- 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
AM (Suing Through Next Friend and Father JA)
Applicant
Michael Muema Kimilu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the omission to award costs in the judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
- 2 Whether the appropriate remedy for failure to award costs is review or appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the omission to award costs in the judgment does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reasoned that the award of costs is a discretionary matter, and any alleged error in the exercise of that discretion is a question of law that should be addressed through an appeal, not by way of review. The court relied on binding appellate authority to distinguish between errors that may be corrected on review and those that are properly the subject of an appeal. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed as it did not meet the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court Disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The application dated 21.7.2023 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
AM (Suing Through Next Friend and Father JA) v Kimilu (Civil Appeal 107 of 2018) [2024] KEHC 1264 (KLR) (9 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1264 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Civil Appeal 107 of 2018
PJO Otieno, J
February 9, 2024
Between
AM
Applicant
Suing Through Next Friend and Father JA
and
Michael Muema Kimilu
Respondent
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and decision of Hon. T. A. Odera (PM) in Mumias PMCC Case No. 438 of 2013 delivered on 13th July 2018)
Ruling
1. By a Judgment dated 2. 6.2023, Musyoka J, allowed the appeal by setting aside the trial Court’s determination dismissing the Appellants suit with costs and substituted therefor a Judgment finding the Respondent 100% liable and assessing damages in the aggregate sum of Kshs. 510,850. The Judgment was silent on costs of both the appeal and those before the trial Court.
2. That decision aggrieved the Appellant and elicited the current application dated 21. 7.2023 seeking that the Judgment be reviewed by the Court awarding to the Appellant both costs of the appeal and those of trial.
3. The application is premised on the provisions of section 27 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Rules.
4. Being an application for review, an Applicant is bound and mandated to fit himself within the defined parameters of their being an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record; the discovery of new and important matter of evidence that was not available and could not be availed by the Applicant, due diligence notwithstanding, at the trial, and any sufficient cause.
5. Here, the Applicant mounts his application on the limb that there is an apparent error on the face of the record. With that position the determination of the application must revolve around the question of what the expression, ‘error apparent in the face of the record’ means.
6. The Court of Appeal in Nyamogo & Nyamogo -vs- Kogo [2001] EA 74 set the law to be that: -“…mere error or wrong view is certainly no ground for review although it may be for an appeal.”
7. The same Court had established the position on the boundaries of review and appeal in National Bank of Ltd -Vs- Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR that the possibilities that another Judge could have come to a different conclusion or that a Judge proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion cannot be grounds for review but may be for an appeal.
8. In this matter, the Court is faulted for failure to award costs both at trial and on appeal to the Appellant as the successful party. It is in dubitable that an award of costs is at the discretion of the Court subject to the principle of law that costs follow the event. A failure by the Court to exercise its discretion one way or the other is an error of law challengeable by an appeal and not by review. An error of law calls for correction by a higher Court but never a reason to seek an get an order for review.
9. In conclusion, the Court determines that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to merit an order for review. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA, THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024. PATRICK J. O. OTIENO..................................JUDGEI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRARIn the presence of:Mr. Siwolo for the RespondentNo appearance for Mwebi for the AppellantCourt Assistant: Polycap Mukabwa