[2024] KEELC 486 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd defendant, Cheptumo & Co Advocates, did not actively participate in the suit and had no vested interest in the transaction. The application for review of the costs order was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents if the judgment was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 486 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sheila Bentley; Defendant: Jospehine Jerono Isaac; Defendant: Cheptumo & Co Advocates
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Review of Costs, Costs Award, Non Participation in Proceedings, Release of Title Deed
- 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
Sheila Bentley
Plaintiff
Jospehine Jerono Isaac
Defendant
Cheptumo & Co Advocates
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs awarded against the 2nd defendant should be reviewed in light of their non-participation in the hearing.
- 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is liable for costs when they acted neutrally and had no vested interest in the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd defendant, Cheptumo & Co Advocates, did not actively participate in the suit and had no vested interest in the transaction. The application for review of the costs order was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents if the judgment was reviewed. Exercising its discretion, the court held that it was just and equitable not to award costs against the 2nd defendant, given their neutral role and non-participation in the substantive hearing. Accordingly, the judgment was reviewed to the extent that no costs would be awarded against the 2nd defendant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The judgment is reviewed to the extent that no costs are awarded against the 2nd defendant.
- No order as to costs in the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Bentley v Isaac & another (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 486 (KLR) (7 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 486 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022
A Ombwayo, J
February 7, 2024
Between
Sheila Bentley
Plaintiff
and
Jospehine Jerono Isaac
1st Defendant
Cheptumo & Co Advocates
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. Cheptumo & Co advocate have come to this court seeking orders that the court review orders on costs issued on 12th October 2023. The applicant prays for costs of the application. The application is made on grounds that there is a judgment that was entered on the 12th October, 2023 where the court ordered that the 1st defendant vacates the property and that the plaintiff was to refund the purchase price less 20% and that the 2nd defendant was to release the title deed to the plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
2. The applicant did not actively participate in the hearing of the originating summons by the plaintiff.
3. The advocates of the plaintiff are in the process of demanding for the costs that was awarded to them in this matter.
4. The Applicant in its response to the said originating summons confirmed having acted for both parties and did not whatsoever have any vested interest nor conflict in the transaction. The applicant furthermore reiterated in its response that it was willing to release the original title deed according to the terms and conditions of the honorable court.
5. It is on those grounds that the Applicant is of the view that the issue of cost doesn't apply to it and the same needs to be reviewed. The application is brought in good faith and in the interest of justice. There will be no prejudice the greater than the prejudice the applicant is likely to suffer if the application for review is not allowed.
6. In the supporting affidavit the advocate for the 2nd defendant the grounds of the application. It is on those grounds that the Applicant is of the view that the issue of cost doesn't apply to it and the same needs to be reviewed.
7. The application is not opposed and therefore, I do find that the respondents will not be prejudiced if the judgment is reviewed and costs are not awarded. Moreover, the 2nd defendant did not actively participate in the suit. I do review the judgment and do award no costs against the 2nd defendant. Orders accordingly. No order as to costs in the application.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024. A O OMBWAYOJUDGE