[2020] KEELC 3184 (KLR)
The court found that the application raised a legitimate issue regarding the consistency of the costs order with the findings of the judgment. Specifically, the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants had been dismissed, yet the order required them to pay half costs to the plaintiff, which is inconsistent with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3184 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Kirongo Ituma Rwito; Defendant: Mary Kingori; Defendant: National Bank of Kenya; Defendant: Internet Data Services Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application to be heard on merits; no final orders on review granted at this stage.
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Costs Award, Error Apparent on Record, Land Dispute
- 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
James Kirongo Ituma Rwito
Plaintiff
Mary Kingori
Defendant
National Bank of Kenya
Defendant
Internet Data Services Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent or accidental slip in the judgment regarding the award of costs to the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.
- 2 Whether the order on costs should be reviewed or varied to align with the dismissal of the suit against the 2nd defendant.
- 3 Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to costs as a successful party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application raised a legitimate issue regarding the consistency of the costs order with the findings of the judgment. Specifically, the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants had been dismissed, yet the order required them to pay half costs to the plaintiff, which is inconsistent with the principle that costs follow the event. The court acknowledged the need to review or vary the order on costs to align with the dismissal of the suit against the 2nd defendant. However, the court did not make a final determination on the merits of the application but instead directed that the application be heard by the Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Mbugua at Meru on 25th March, 2020....
Court Disposition
Application to be heard on merits; no final orders on review granted at this stage.
Orders
- The application is to be heard by Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Mbugua, ELC Judge, at Meru on 25th March, 2020.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
MERU ELC CASE NO. 01 OF 2008
JAMES KIRONGO ITUMA RWITO............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARY KINGORI.................................................1ST DEFENDANT
NTIONAL BANK OF KENYA...........................2ND DEFENDANT
INTERNET DATA SERVICES LIMITED.......3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 25th February, 2020 and seeks the following orders:
1. That this honourable court be pleased to certify this application urgent and proceed to make and/or issue appropriate direction for its disposal.
2. That this honourable court be pleased to review and/or vary paragraph 57 (4) of its judgment made and delivered on 10th February, 2020 in respect to the 2nd defendant/applicant and particularly the order requiring the defendants to pay half costs to the plaintiff plus interest at court rates.
3. That this honourable court be pleased to award to the 2nd defendant/applicant costs of the suit as against the plaintiff for being successful in its defence of the plaintiff/respondent claim against it.
4. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Samuel Mundia sworn on 25th February, 2020 and has the following grounds:-
a. That there is an error apparent and/or an accidental slip by the court in the order made under paragraph 57 (4) of its judgment on the issue of costs payable to the plaintiff/respondent.
b. The order made by the court on payment of costs as per paragraph 57 (4) of the judgment is inconsistent with the findings of the court as stated in paragraph 57 (1) in which the plaintiff/respondent’s suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was dismissed yet in paragraph 57 (4) the court ordered that the defendants pay half costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
c. The established legal position on payment of costs is that costs, though at the discretion of the court, will always follow the event unless in exceptional circumstances and for specific reasons to be stated by the court.
d. There is an error apparent and/or an accidental slip in the order made by the court on the issue of costs as a party whose suit has been dismissed against a defendant in the suit cannot then be entitled to costs of the dismissed suit against the successful defendant.
e. There is therefore need for the said order to be reviewed and/or varied so as to align and conform itself to the findings of the court and to conform to the law in regard to costs of the suit.
f. This application is made in utmost good faith and has been brought to court without undue delay.
g. The nature of facts and circumstances of the case herein are in favour of granting of the prayers being sought for vide this application.
3. Having perused the application and the accompanying pleadings, I issue the following orders:
a. The application is to be herd by the Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Mbugua, ELC Judge, at Meru on 25th March, 2020.
b. Costs shall be in the cause.
4. Orders accordingly.
Deliverd in open Court at Chuka this 12th day of March, 2020 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties not present
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.