[2015] KEHC 5604 (KLR)
The court held that while costs generally follow the event, it retains discretion to determine liability for costs. In this case, the 4th respondent's unilateral complaint to the National Land Commission, without notice to the petitioner or interested parties, set in motion the events leading to the petition. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5604 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Inter Countries Importers and Exporters Limited; Respondent: National Land Commission; Respondent: Chief Land Registrar; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Tele Posta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees; Respondent: Park Avenue Investments Limited; Respondent: Jubilee Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Trust Bank Limited (In Liquidation); Respondent: Commissioner of Lands
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 530 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Costs
- Outcome
- Costs awarded against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents jointly in favour of the petitioner and interested parties who responded to the petition.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Court Discretion, Gazette Notice Revocation, Land Title Revocation
- 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
Inter Countries Importers and Exporters Limited
Applicant
National Land Commission
Respondent
Chief Land Registrar
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Tele Posta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees
Respondent
Park Avenue Investments Limited
Respondent
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Trust Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
Respondent
Commissioner of Lands
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Who should bear the costs of the petition following the court's determination.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while costs generally follow the event, it retains discretion to determine liability for costs. In this case, the 4th respondent's unilateral complaint to the National Land Commission, without notice to the petitioner or interested parties, set in motion the events leading to the petition. The 1st respondent acted on the complaint by publishing the impugned Gazette Notice, and the 2nd and 3rd respondents failed to prevent these actions. Given these circumstances, the court found it just that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents should jointly bear the costs payable to the petitioner and interested parties who responded to the petition.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents jointly in favour of the petitioner and interested parties who responded to the petition.
Orders
- The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents shall jointly pay costs to the petitioner and interested parties who responded to the petition.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 530 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 2,10,21,23,40,47 AND 67 OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA GAZETTE NOTICE NO.15325 VOL. CXV-NO. 172 PUBLISHED ON 6TH, DECEMBER 2013 AND SUBSEQUENTLY CORRIGENDA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PURPORTED REVOCATION OF THE TITLE L.R. NO. 209/13238
BETWEEN
INTER COUNTRIES IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS LIMITED………………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION…............…………………………..1ST RESPONDENT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR……..……………..………………………..……2ND RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…….…………..…………..………..………… 3RD RESPONDENT
TELE POSTA PENSION SCHEME REGISTERED TRUSTEES….........….. 4TH RESPONDENT
AND
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED …….…......….....….…..…1ST INTERESTED PARTY
JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ………..............……. .2ND INTERESTED PARTY
TRUST BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) …………......…………..3RD INTERESTED PARTY
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS……………….............…………….…..4TH INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
The issue before this Court is who should pay costs? The applicable law is found in section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that;-“(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers: Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.”
I have considered the oral submissions made. Costs largely follow the event, however the Court has discretion to determine which party will meet the costs and to what extent. The 4th respondent moved to National Land Commission and filed a complaint at the time it did so it did not inform the petitioner and the interested parties. Its action of filing the complaint led the 1st respondent to publish the Gazette Notice No. 15325issued on 6th December 2013 the subject of this petition. The 2nd and 3rd respondents did nothing to prevent the actions taken by the 1st Respondent. The 4th respondent is the one who filed the complaint that caused the National Land Commission to take up the matter. Costs is a matter of discretion of the Court therefore in my view and considering the circumstances of this case that the 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th respondents should jointly share costs to be paid to the petitioner and interested parties who responded to the petition.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered this6th ofMarch, 2015.
R. E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of
………………………………..………..…………………...……..Petitioner ……………………….…………...…………………..…....1st Respondent
…………………………..………………..……..…..2nd & 3rd Respondent
…………………………….………..………………………..4th Respondent
……………………….………..………………………..1st Interested Party
………………………………..………………………..2nd Interested Party
……………………….……….………………………..3rd Interested Party
………………………….………..……..……...……..4th Interested Party
Mr. Makori Court Clerk.