[2015] KEHC 7393 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7393 (KLR)

The court held that the Petitioner was the successful party in the litigation, as the Company only paid the outstanding debt after the petition was filed and after repeated broken promises. The Petitioner had issued due demand notices, which were ignored, necessitating the petition. The court found no misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and determined that the Petitioner was entitled to costs of the petition in addition to the costs of the application to strike out, which had already been awarded. The fact that the Company did not contest the petition vigorously or that payment was made after the petition was filed did not deprive the Petitioner of its entitlement to costs. The court...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7393 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Payless Car Hire and Tours; Applicant: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Case Number
Winding Up Cause 19 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Costs After Settlement of Debt and Dismissal of Application to Strike Out Petition
Outcome
Petitioner awarded costs of the petition to be taxed by the taxing master or agreed between the parties, in addition to costs of the application already awarded.
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petitions, Costs Awards, Company Debt Recovery
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Winding Up Petitions Costs Awards Company Debt Recovery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Payless Car Hire and Tours

Respondent

__MISSING__

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Costs After Settlement of Debt and Dismissal of Application to Strike Out Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to costs after the company paid the debt following the filing of the winding up petition.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the company in paying after the petition affects the award of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of spirited contest or resistance by the company is relevant to the award of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Petitioner was the successful party in the litigation, as the Company only paid the outstanding debt after the petition was filed and after repeated broken promises. The Petitioner had issued due demand notices, which were ignored, necessitating the petition. The court found no misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and determined that the Petitioner was entitled to costs of the petition in addition to the costs of the application to strike out, which had already been awarded. The fact that the Company did not contest the petition vigorously or that payment was made after the petition was filed did not deprive the Petitioner of its entitlement to costs. The court...

Court Disposition

Petitioner awarded costs of the petition to be taxed by the taxing master or agreed between the parties, in addition to costs of the application already awarded.

Orders

  • Petitioner is awarded costs of the petition to be taxed by the taxing master or agreed between the parties.
  • Petitioner is entitled to costs of the application to strike out, as previously awarded.