[2010] KEHC 192 (KLR)
The court found that the omission to award costs to the 1st Defendant in the ruling delivered on 26th March, 2010 was a result of inadvertence. The record showed that the 1st Defendant had specifically prayed for costs, and the court had allowed the application to strike out the suit. In the interests of justice and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 192 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Duncan Chuhi Mungai; Defendant: Kiambu Unity Finance Co-operative Union; Defendant: Gladsom Auctioneers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 590 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; omission in previous ruling corrected; no order as to costs for the review application.
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Costs Award, Error Apparent on Face of Record
- 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
Duncan Chuhi Mungai
Plaintiff
Kiambu Unity Finance Co-operative Union
Defendant
Gladsom Auctioneers Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the omission of an order for costs in favour of the 1st Defendant.
- 2 Whether the court should review its earlier ruling to include an order for costs to the 1st Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission to award costs to the 1st Defendant in the ruling delivered on 26th March, 2010 was a result of inadvertence. The record showed that the 1st Defendant had specifically prayed for costs, and the court had allowed the application to strike out the suit. In the interests of justice and to correct the error apparent on the face of the record, the court allowed the application for review. However, the court exercised its discretion and made no order as to costs for the review application itself.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; omission in previous ruling corrected; no order as to costs for the review application.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 12th October, 2010 is allowed.
- The omission regarding costs in the ruling of 26th March, 2010 is corrected in favour of the 1st Defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 590 OF 2009
DUNCAN CHUHI MUNGAI..….........................................................................…………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIAMBU UNITY FINANCE
CO-OPERATIVE UNION............................................................................................ 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
GLADSOM AUCTIONEERS
LIMITED………….....................................................................…………....................2ND DEFENDANT/APPLIANT
RULING
The 1st Defendant/Applicant in the Notice of Motion, dated 12th October, 2010 prays that this court be pleased to review the Ruling of the Honourable Lady Justice Koome delivered on 26th March, 2010 and award costs of the suit to the applicant.
The application is premised on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the Ruling in that whereas the court allowed with costs the applicant’s Chamber Summons dated 1st December, 2009 for striking out the plaintiff’s suit under Order V1 Rules 13 (b) and (c) the court failed to order that the costs of the suit be paid to the 1st Defendant/Applicant.
Although served, the Plaintiff did not attend at the hearing of the application. However, it is clear from the court’s ruling that the merits of the suit were weighed as per the pleadings filed before the suit was summarily dismissed as against the 1st Defendant.
Paragraph 2 of the Ruling of 26th March, 2010 clearly states that the applicant had prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs being awarded to it. I am satisfied that the omission must have been pure inadvertence on the part of the court and should be corrected in the interests of justice.
Accordingly the Notice of Motion dated 12th October, 2010 is hereby allowed with no orders as to costs.
DATED SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 16TH day of NOVEMBER, 2010
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr Okuiri For the Applicant
No appearance For the Respondent