[2016] KEELRC 164 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 164 (KLR)

The court found that the applicable interest rate on costs is at the discretion of the court, provided it does not exceed 14% per annum as stipulated by section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the trial judge did not specify a particular rate, the Deputy Registrar's guidance to levy costs at 14% per annum...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 164 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Godfrey Kimani Njenga; Respondent: Athi River Mining Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1115 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interest on Costs, Court Rates, Costs Award, Civil Procedure Act Section 27
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Interest on Costs Court Rates Costs Award Civil Procedure Act Section 27

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Kimani Njenga

Claimant

Athi River Mining Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cause / Ruling

  1. 1 What is the correct rate of interest to be applied on costs awarded to the claimant.
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar was correct in guiding the claimant to levy costs at 14% per annum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicable interest rate on costs is at the discretion of the court, provided it does not exceed 14% per annum as stipulated by section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the trial judge did not specify a particular rate, the Deputy Registrar's guidance to levy costs at 14% per annum was within the permissible legal limit. The applicant's contention that the rate should be 12% was not supported by a specific judicial order or statutory mandate limiting the rate to 12%. Therefore, the application challenging the 14% rate lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.