[2014] KEHC 5308 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5308 (KLR)

The Court found that the Company is entitled to recover party and party costs as awarded in the Ruling of 6th September 2012, since the Petitioner neither appealed that decision nor obtained a stay of execution. The Petitioner’s arguments based on res judicata and alleged agency were rejected, as the Court had already considered and dismissed similar submissions previously. The Court held that there was no evidence of an agency relationship that would preclude the Company from recovering costs, and that the Petitioner could not use the same arguments to block the Company’s Bill of Costs. The Court further determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner’s Notice of...

Citation
[2014] KEHC 5308 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Steve Kithi & Co., Advocates; Respondent: East Africa Power Management Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Case Number
Winding Up Cause 10 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs to the Company; Preliminary Objection upheld.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Winding Up Petition, Party and Party Costs, Res Judicata, Agency Relationship, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Winding Up Petition Party and Party Costs Res Judicata Agency Relationship Costs Award

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steve Kithi & Co., Advocates

Applicant

East Africa Power Management Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company is entitled to recover party and party costs following the striking out of the winding up petition.
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner can rely on res judicata or agency arguments to block the recovery of costs by the Company.
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion seeking to strike out the Bill of Costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Company is entitled to recover party and party costs as awarded in the Ruling of 6th September 2012, since the Petitioner neither appealed that decision nor obtained a stay of execution. The Petitioner’s arguments based on res judicata and alleged agency were rejected, as the Court had already considered and dismissed similar submissions previously. The Court held that there was no evidence of an agency relationship that would preclude the Company from recovering costs, and that the Petitioner could not use the same arguments to block the Company’s Bill of Costs. The Court further determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner’s Notice of...

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs to the Company; Preliminary Objection upheld.

Orders

  • The Petitioner’s Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2012 is dismissed with costs to the Company.
  • The Company’s Preliminary Objection dated 22nd March 2013 is upheld.