[2005] KEHC 2606 (KLR)
The court held that the Plaintiff was successful on one of his substantive prayers, namely the allocation of a 3% shareholding in the 1st Defendant, which was consented to by the Defendants. The fact that the Plaintiff did not succeed on the monetary claim did not negate his success on the shareholding claim. There...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2606 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Njoroge; Defendant: Fintech International Limited; Defendant: Fintech Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 2170 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Consent Judgment, Shareholding Disputes
- 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
Henry Njoroge
Plaintiff
Fintech International Limited
Defendant
Fintech Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Should the Plaintiff be awarded the costs of the suit after a consent judgment was entered in his favour on one of the prayers?
- 2 Does the partial success of the Plaintiff entitle him to costs despite not succeeding on all prayers?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Plaintiff was successful on one of his substantive prayers, namely the allocation of a 3% shareholding in the 1st Defendant, which was consented to by the Defendants. The fact that the Plaintiff did not succeed on the monetary claim did not negate his success on the shareholding claim. There were no counterclaims by the Defendants and no special circumstances to justify a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the suit, which would be taxed on the successful prayer.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
Orders
- The costs of this suit are payable to the Plaintiff and will be taxed on the successful prayer.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL DIVISION – MILIMANI
CIVIL CASE NO.2170 OF 2000
HENRY NJOROGE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FINTECH INTERNATION LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1ST DEFENDANT
FINTECH KENYA LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
By his Plaint dated 16th November, 2000 and filed on 6th December, 2000, the Plaintiff prayed for:-
(a) Judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for US $18,000. 00
(b) An order that the Defendants do deliver to the Plaintiff share certificates in respect of his 3% shareholding in the 1st Defendant.
(c) Costs.
The Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claim. On 30th September, 2002 a statement of agreed issues was filed and one of the issues framed was as follows:-
“5. Did the Plaintiff participate in any negotiations regarding the said Agreements with the Southern African Enterprises Development Fund Inc. that constituted a forbearance of his entitlement to 3% of the share capital in the First Defendant, a waiver of clause F(1) in the letter of offer and a concession of the entitlement contained in clause F(1) of the Letter of Offer?.”
On 24th February, 2005 a consent judgment was recorded by which inter alia the Plaintiff was allocated a 3% shareholding in the 1st Defendant. The parties however did not agree on who should bear the costs of the suit. This is the only issue for decision by me. On 16th March 2005, Counsels appearing agreed to file written submissions on this remaining issue. The submissions were accordingly filed. I have considered them. I have also considered the authorities relied upon by each Counsel. Having done so, I take the following view of the matter. It is clear that prayer (b) of the Plaintiff was consented to by the Defendants. The compromise reached was therefore partially in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not raise any counterclaim. Under Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs are at the discretion of the Court. Ordinarily, however, they follow the event. In this case the Plaintiff has succeeded on one of his prayers. Costs should follow this event. In my view it is irrelevant that prayer (a) was not granted. This per se cannot deny the Plaintiff his costs on the successful prayer. The fact that the Defendants may have successfully resisted prayer (a) is not an event for which the Defendants are entitled to costs. There are no other circumstances in this case that would make me depart from the well-known principle. I accordingly hold that the costs of this suit are payable to the Plaintiff which costs will be taxed on the successful prayer.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY 2005.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE