[2008] KEHC 2500 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2500 (KLR)

The court found the arguments presented by the respondents, through their counsel Mr. W.A. Mutubwa, to be more persuasive than those of the applicant. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the respondents, in line with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 2500 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Janet K. Muhali and Jimmy M. Alusa (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of Silas Alusa); Defendant: Joseph Mbugua Kibuywa; Defendant: Salama Road Construction; Defendant: Kaburu Okelo and Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit NO. 13 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 27th March, 2008
Outcome
Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Judges
JM Khamoni
Legal Topics
Notice of Motion, Costs Award, Dismissal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Motion Costs Award Dismissal of Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet K. Muhali and Jimmy M. Alusa (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of Silas Alusa)

Plaintiff

Joseph Mbugua Kibuywa

Defendant

Salama Road Construction

Defendant

Kaburu Okelo and Partners Consulting Engineers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 27th March, 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 should be allowed or dismissed.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the arguments presented by the respondents, through their counsel Mr. W.A. Mutubwa, to be more persuasive than those of the applicant. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the respondents, in line with the principle that costs follow the event. The ruling does not elaborate on the substantive merits of the application, but the outcome was determined by the comparative strength of the parties' submissions.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 27th March, 2008 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.