[2022] KEHC 11243 (KLR)
The court found that the omission of an order for costs in the judgment delivered on September 9, 2016 was an inadvertent mistake, as the plaintiff had specifically prayed for costs and both parties had made submissions on the issue. The court held that such an omission is correctable under the slip rule pursuant to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 11243 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elvis Mutahi Githinji; Defendant: James Mutitu Mworia; Defendant: David Chege Mworia; Defendant: Nation Media Group Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 71 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment to Include Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Judgment amended to award costs to plaintiff.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Slip Rule, Amendment of Judgment
- 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
Elvis Mutahi Githinji
Plaintiff
James Mutitu Mworia
Defendant
David Chege Mworia
Defendant
Nation Media Group Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment to Include Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can amend its judgment to include an award of costs where it was previously omitted.
- 2 Whether the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to correct the omission of costs.
- 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for amendment is satisfactorily explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission of an order for costs in the judgment delivered on September 9, 2016 was an inadvertent mistake, as the plaintiff had specifically prayed for costs and both parties had made submissions on the issue. The court held that such an omission is correctable under the slip rule pursuant to section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. The delay in bringing the application was satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment was amended to include an award of costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, and the costs are to be taxed. Each party is to bear their own costs for the instant application.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Judgment amended to award costs to plaintiff.
Orders
- The judgment delivered on September 9, 2016 is amended to include an award of costs in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants.
- Such costs should be taxed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Githinji v Mworia & 2 others (Civil Case 71 of 2012) [2022] KEHC 11243 (KLR) (Civ) (21 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11243 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Case 71 of 2012
JK Sergon, J
July 21, 2022
Between
Elvis Mutahi Githinji
Plaintiff
and
James Mutitu Mworia
1st Defendant
David Chege Mworia
2nd Defendant
Nation Media Group Limited
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated April 19, 2022 whereof the plaintiff seeks to have the judgment delivered on September 9, 2016 to be amended so that an award of costs is provided for. The plaintiff filed the affidavit sworn by James T Makori in support of the motion. When served with the application, the defendants filed the affidavit sworn by James Mutitu Mworia, the 1st defendant herein to oppose the same.
2. I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the rival affidavits. It is the submission of the plaintiff that this court delivered its judgment on September 9, 2016 but did not mention costs. The plaintiff urged this court to award him costs since he is a successful litigant. This court was urged to apply the slip to correct the error and award costs to the plaintiff.
3. The defendant opposed the application arguing that the plaintiff took more than six years to file the instant application yet he was made aware that costs was not awarded. The defendant further stated that the court exercised its discretion to deny the plaintiff costs hence there is no error the court made.
4. Having considered the rival submission, it is not in dispute that this court delivered its judgment on September 9, 2016 which was silent on costs. It is also not in dispute that the taxing officer vide her ruling delivered on September 6, 2018 declined to tax the plaintiff’s bill of costs dated June 29, 2017 because the court did not issue an order awarding costs.
5. The plaintiff has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the motion. Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. In the instant case the plaintiff is a successful litigant. In the plaint the plaintiff sought for costs. Both the plaintiff and the defendants made submissions on costs. This court did not mention costs in its judgment yet the plaintiff had specifically prayed to be awarded costs.
6. I am satisfied that this court made an inadvertent mistake which mistake can be corrected using the slip rule pursuant to section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
7. In the end, I find the motion dated April 19, 2022 to be meritorious. It is allowed. Consequently, the judgment delivered on September 9, 2016 is amended to include an award of costs in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants.
8. Such costs should be taxed. Each party to meet their own costs in respect of the instant motion.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022. ………………………JK SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:……………………………. for the plaintiff.……………………………. for the 1st defendant.……………………………. for the 2nd defendant.……………………………. for the 3rd defendant