[2018] KEELRC 931 (KLR)
The court found that it had overlooked the claimants' specific prayer for costs in its original judgment, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicable rules and statutory provisions grant the court discretion to award costs, but require that discretion to be exercised judiciously and with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 931 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Omondi Anyango; Applicant: Dennis Amadiva; Respondent: G4S Security Services (K) Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 396 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment Regarding Costs
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; judgment reviewed to award costs to claimants.
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Review of Judgment, Judicial Discretion, Terminal Benefits, Procedure Rules
- 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
Jackson Omondi Anyango
Applicant
Dennis Amadiva
Applicant
G4S Security Services (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment Regarding Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court erred by failing to make an order as to costs despite a specific prayer for costs by the claimants.
- 2 Whether the judgment should be reviewed to include an award of costs to the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it had overlooked the claimants' specific prayer for costs in its original judgment, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicable rules and statutory provisions grant the court discretion to award costs, but require that discretion to be exercised judiciously and with reasons provided for any departure from the norm. Since no reasons were given for denying costs and the claimants had succeeded, the court held that the omission should be corrected by reviewing the judgment to include an award of costs in favour of the claimants against the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; judgment reviewed to award costs to claimants.
Orders
- The judgment is reviewed to provide for an award of costs against the respondent in favour of the two claimants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 396 OF 2015
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
1. JACKSON OMONDI ANYANGO
2. DENNIS AMADIVA.........................................................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
G4S SECURITY SERVICES (K) LTD.............................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango, delivered a Judgment dated 8th June, 2017 in which the court awarded terminal benefits and compensation to the Claimants/Applicant but made no order as to costs.
2. In the Memorandum of Claim filed on 6th November, the Claimant prayed for costs. The Hon. Judge did not make any finding at all on this prayer.
3. Rule 29(1) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 provides –
“(1)The court shall be guided by section 12(4) of the employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and the Advocates (Remuneration) order in awarding costs.
(2) The court may order reasonable reimbursements of money spent by litigants in the course of litigation.”
4. Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Cap 234 B Laws of Kenya, provides –
“In proceedings under this Act, the court may, subject to the rules, make such orders as to costs as the court considers just.”
5. From the foregoing, the court has a discretion to make such orders as to costs as it deems just.
6. In exercise of that discretion, the court must act judiciously and provide reasons for not granting costs or reasonable reimbursements where they have been specifically prayed for.
7. In the present case, the court overlooked that item though it was specifically prayed for.
8. An application for review under Rule 33(1) (b), that is to say –
“On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”
Is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
9. It is a well decided principle, to be found in the Civil Procedure Act, that costs follow the event.
10. Accordingly, the court reviews the judgment of the court to provide for an award of costs against the Respondent in favour of the two Claimants.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 11th day of October, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mwakio, Kirwa for Claimants/Applicant
Hamilton Harrison & Mathews for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk