[2013] KEHC 5836 (KLR)
The court held that, since the terms of the settlement were not disclosed and it was not possible to determine in whose favour the settlement was made, the usual rule that costs follow the event could not be applied. In such circumstances, the court exercised its discretion and ordered that each party bear its own...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5836 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elijah Gatu; Defendant: South Tetu Hotels and Bars Ltd; Defendant: Gikondi African Hotels & Bars Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1235 & 1236 of 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Settlement
- Outcome
- Each party to bear its own costs.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Settlement, 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
Elijah Gatu
Plaintiff
South Tetu Hotels and Bars Ltd
Defendant
Gikondi African Hotels & Bars Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Settlement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to any party where the terms of settlement are undisclosed.
- 2 Who should bear the costs when it is unclear in whose favour the settlement was made.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, since the terms of the settlement were not disclosed and it was not possible to determine in whose favour the settlement was made, the usual rule that costs follow the event could not be applied. In such circumstances, the court exercised its discretion and ordered that each party bear its own costs. The absence of information regarding fault or success in the settlement precluded an award of costs to either side.
Court Disposition
Each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO 1235 OF 1981
ELIJAH GATU ………............……………..…...........................................................…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SOUTH TETU HOTELS AND BARS LTD …..……………..….…...….……………DEFENDANT
AND
CIVIL CASE NO 1236 OF 1981
ELIJAH GATU .………………….............…...............................................................…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GIKONDI AFRICAN HOTELS & BARS LTD..….…………………….……….……DEFENDANT
CONSOLIDATED RULING
1. These two very old matters were on 4th June 2013, and by consent, marked as settled except for the issue of costs which was left to the court to determine. The terms of the settlement (if any) were not disclosed to the court.
2. The issue of costs was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Plaintiff filed his submissions on 13th December 2012 in both matters. The Defendants filed their on 24th January 2013 in both matters. I have considered those submissions, including the cases cited.
3. The parties have done nothing more than argue their respective cases in the suits, arguments which I would have thought were rendered moot by settlement of the suits! At the end of it all, the terms of settlement have not been disclosed even in the submissions.
4. Costs will normally follow the event. The event will usually be the favourable outcome of the suit for one or the other party. In this case it is not known by the court in whose favour the settlement was. Did it favour the Plaintiff or the Defendants? Was one or the other party found to be at fault either expressly or by necessary implication in the settlement?
5. In these circumstances the only order that commends itself to the court is that the parties do bear their own costs of the suit. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2013