[2012] KEHC 3828 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiff, having instituted the suit and subsequently withdrawn it of their own volition, is liable to pay costs to the 1st defendant. The court found that the plaintiff's argument that the suit became useless after eviction was without merit, as the plaintiff could have amended the suit to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3828 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Faustine Njoroge Njuguna; Plaintiff: Jennifer Njeri Kariuki; Defendant: Harrison Kinyua Githenya; Defendant: Winnie Kanario Kinyua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 469 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Interpleader Application / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant.
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Costs Award, Distress for Rent, Eviction, Consent Orders
- 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
Faustine Njoroge Njuguna
Plaintiff
Jennifer Njeri Kariuki
Plaintiff
Harrison Kinyua Githenya
Defendant
Winnie Kanario Kinyua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Application / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of the suit after voluntarily withdrawing the case.
- 2 Whether the eviction of the plaintiff rendered the suit moot and justified withdrawal without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff, having instituted the suit and subsequently withdrawn it of their own volition, is liable to pay costs to the 1st defendant. The court found that the plaintiff's argument that the suit became useless after eviction was without merit, as the plaintiff could have amended the suit to seek further relief. The withdrawal was not compelled by the defendant's actions but was a voluntary act by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the 1st defendant is entitled to costs, and the plaintiff is directed to pay them, with the quantum to be determined by the Taxing Master upon filing of a Bill of Costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant.
Orders
- Plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant.
- 1st defendant to file a Bill of Costs for determination by the Taxing Master.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Environmental & Land Case 469 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERPLEADER APPLICATION
BETWEEN
FAUSTINE NJOROGE NJUGUNA …………….…………..1ST PLAINTIFF
JENNIFER NJERI KARIUKI …………..……………………2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HARRISON KINYUA GITHENYA ………………….……1ST DEFENDANT
WINNIE KANARIO KINYUA ………..…………………..2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants seeking for two principal orders.
The 1st Defendant entered appearance and filed a replying affidavit on 12th October, 2010. When the matter came up for hearing, the parties recorded the following consent:
“That the application dated 5th September, 2010 be and is hereby marked as settled on the following terms:
(a)Kshs.750,000 be paid by the applicants as follows:
Kshs.225,000 to Paul Mungla & Co. Advocates.
Kshs.225,000 to P.M. Ndungu & Co. Advocates. The payments to be made on or before the 14th December 2010
(b)Kshs.150,000 to be paid to Paul Mungla & Co. Advocates and Kshs.150,000/= to be paid to P.M. Ndungu & Co. Advocates payments to be made on or before the 15th January, 2011.
(c)In default, execution to issue.
(d)Status quo to be maintained.
(e)The originating summons dated 5th September, 2010 to proceed to hearing on viva voce evidence and on priority basis.
(f)Parties do file such other affidavits as may be necessary by 15th January, 2011.
(g)Parties to file agreed paginating bundle of documents by 21st January, 2011.
The Plaintiff failed to pay rent and according to the 1st defendant, distress for rent was executed to recover the outstanding rents.
When the Plaintiff’s goods were distressed, the parties negotiated the terms of their release and on 4th August, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily vacated the 1st Defendant’s premises. Further, the Plaintiff witnessed the suit against the Defendant on 20th September, 2011. It is against background that the Plaintiff requested for Judgment on costs be paid by the Plaintiff in respect of this suit.
The plaintiff opposed the payment of costs on the ground that the Plaintiff was evicted from the suit premises so as to destroy the subject matter. Since the Plaintiff was evicted from the suit premises, the suit became useless and that is why it was withdrawn.
It is not disputed that the Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants and later withdrew the suit. The argument that the suit became useless after the Plaintiffs were evicted from the suit premises lacks merit. The Plaintiff could have amended the suit to include additional prayers for eviction. The Plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendants and withdrew it on his own volition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should pay the costs to the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant to file a Bill of Costs for determination by the Taxing Master.
Ruling Read and Signed this 20th day of January, 2012.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE OF APPEAL.