[2007] KEHC 2731 (KLR)
The court found that once a matter is concluded on appeal, there is no remaining cause in which costs can be claimed, making the order that 'costs be in the cause' an error apparent on the face of the record. The judge determined that this was a slip of the pen and that the court had jurisdiction to review and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2731 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Helda Aneya Oduol; Respondent: Agneta Ooko
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 56 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
- Outcome
- application for review allowed; costs order reviewed
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Costs Orders, Slip Rule, Error on Face of Record
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Helda Aneya Oduol
Appellant
Agneta Ooko
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can review its previous order on costs under the Slip Rule due to an error apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the order that 'costs be in the cause' was a slip and should be replaced with an order that each party bears its own costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that once a matter is concluded on appeal, there is no remaining cause in which costs can be claimed, making the order that 'costs be in the cause' an error apparent on the face of the record. The judge determined that this was a slip of the pen and that the court had jurisdiction to review and correct the order under the Slip Rule. The court further considered the history of the matter, including the proceedings before the Provincial Land Appeals Tribunal, and concluded that the intention was not to award costs to either party. Therefore, the order was reviewed and replaced with an order that each party bears its own costs, both for the appeal and the application.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed; costs order reviewed
Orders
- The order that 'costs be in the cause' is reviewed and replaced with an order that each party bears its own costs.
- Each party to bear the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Civil Appeal 56 of 2003
HELDA ANEYA ODUOL……………………………..APPELLANT
VS
AGNETA OOKO……………….……………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant in this application appears to be Roselyne Aburili Advocate. She has filed the application under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, O.XLIV Rules 1, 2, 3(2), 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She is asking the court to review the order on costs made on 3-2-2006 and award the costs of the appeal to the appellant in Civil Appeal No.56/2003 who is her client. She has premised the application on the grounds on the face of the application and on her own affidavit dated 28-2-2006.
Her main contention is that the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant and since there is no other cause pending, she is not able to claim costs. She contends that the order that “costs be in the cause” was a slip of the pen which this court has jurisdiction to review under the Slip Rule.
The application is opposed by counsel for the Respondent vide the 6 grounds of opposition dated 20. 10. 2006. I have carefully considered the application in question along with the said grounds and affidavit vis a vis the grounds of opposition. The matter is, in my view very straight forward indeed. Once a matter is concluded on appeal, there is no cause left on record in which costs can be claimed. The order that “costs be in the cause” must therefore have been a slip by the Honourable Judge. In my considered view, this is an error apparent on the face of the record which I have jurisdiction to amend/review.
I have looked at the pleadings before the Provincial Land Appeals Tribunal along with paragraph 4 of the grounds of opposition. These show that it is the applicant who had taken the Respondent to the tribunal which ruled against her. This must have crossed the mind of my brother Judge when he made his ruling. Had he wanted to give the appellant costs, he could have succinctly said so in his judgment. It appears to me that he did not wish to give costs to either party and hence the slip that costs be in the cause. After considering the issues and submissions before me, I agree that there is an error on the face of the record which needs to be rectified.
Accordingly, I allow the application dated 28. 2.2006 and review the order that “costs be in the cause” and replace it with an order that “each party bears its own costs.” That is the order that appeals to my sense of justice in the circumstances and also the order which I believe my brother Judge meant to make. Each party to also bear the costs of this application.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
Delivered and dated at Bungoma this 7th day of February, 2007 in open court in presence of both counsels.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
7/2/2007