[2021] KEELC 1052 (KLR)
The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and could not substantiate or provide a simpler version of its decision, as the judgment was self-explanatory and complied with Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Regarding the review of costs, the court found no material or bill of costs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1052 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah M’Njogu M’Torugoji; Respondent: The County Government of Meru; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Charles Kaburu Kabarua; Interested Party: Evangeline T. Arithi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 9 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Review and Substantiation of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Costs, Stay of Execution, Judicial Discretion on Costs, Functus Officio, Land Disputes
- 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
Jeremiah M’Njogu M’Torugoji
Applicant
The County Government of Meru
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Charles Kaburu Kabarua
Respondent
Evangeline T. Arithi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Review and Substantiation of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can substantiate or clarify its previous judgment after delivery.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of the order for costs awarded to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and could not substantiate or provide a simpler version of its decision, as the judgment was self-explanatory and complied with Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Regarding the review of costs, the court found no material or bill of costs before it to warrant disturbing the previous order. The discretion to award costs lies with the court, and in the absence of good cause to withhold costs, the order stands. The application was found to be premature and lacking in merit, leading to its dismissal with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 19.3.2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 9 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JEREMIAH M’NJOGU M’TORUGOJI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MERU MINICIPALITY BLCOK 11/792 & BLOCK 11/793
JEREMIAH M’NJOGU M’TORUGOJI........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU.......1ST RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ..................2ND RESPONDENT
CHARLES KABURU KABARUA .......................3RD RESPONDENT
EVANGELINE T. ARITHI ............................. INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. The application dated 19. 3.2020 brought under Order 42 rule 6seeks the court to first substantiate its judgment delivered on 19. 2.2020 and secondly, review costs awarded to the respondents.
2. It is supported by grounds on the face of it and a supporting affidavits sworn by Jeremiah M’Njogu M’Norugojisworn on19. 3.2020 and 11. 8.2020 respectively. Through a judgment delivered on 7. 2.2020, this court dismissed the applicant’s notice of motion dated 22. 6.2015 with costs.
3. Order 42 rule 6 provides that for a court to grant stay of execution pending appeal it has to be satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
4. The applicant herein has not indicated if he has preferred any appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the aforesaid judgment. He has not stated if there is an impending execution against him and that he is likely to suffer substantial loss unless a stay is granted.
5. The prayers sought are not for stay of execution pending appeal but for the court to substantiate its judgment and review the order for costs. The judgment was self-explanatory. Under the BlackLaws Dictionary 11th editionthe word substantiate means “ to establish the existence or truth of fact by competent evidence.” There can be no doubt the judgment as written is as per Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is self-explanatory and does not need any further explanation. The court is therefore functus officio and cannot offer a simpler version of its decision.
6. Secondly regarding review of costs, Under Section 27 & 28 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event. It is the discretion of the court upon delivery of a judgment to determine whether or not to award costs to any party. Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya –vs- Mutula Kilonzo & 2 [2013] eKLR 2 Others, it was held a trial court has judicial discretion to award costs to a successful party unless there are good grounds or cause to withhold costs.
7. There is no material before court to disturb the orders granted. I have not seen any bill of costs for assessment by the respondents in this matter due for taxation and or already taxed and which there is an impending execution.
8. For the above reasons I find the notice of motion dated 19. 3.2020 not only premature but lacking merits. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MERU THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
In presence of:
Kieti For 3rd Respondent
Nyenyire absent
Court Clerk: Kananu
HON. C.K. NZILI
ELC JUDGE