[2022] KEELC 15636 (KLR)
The court found that after the respondents entered appearance, they promptly initiated the settlement process, and there were no protracted legal battles or substantive hearing of the judicial review motion. The matter remained at the leave stage, and the substantive motion was never heard. Given these...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 15636 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JM (Minor Suing through his Next Friend and Father JMT); Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 47 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Costs After Settlement
- Outcome
- Each party to bear their own costs.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Judicial Review Procedure, Mandamus Orders
- 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
JM (Minor Suing through his Next Friend and Father JMT)
Applicant
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Costs After Settlement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs after the suit was settled before substantive hearing.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs filed by the applicant should be allowed despite the absence of protracted litigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that after the respondents entered appearance, they promptly initiated the settlement process, and there were no protracted legal battles or substantive hearing of the judicial review motion. The matter remained at the leave stage, and the substantive motion was never heard. Given these circumstances, and in line with the constitutional principle of promoting alternative dispute resolution, the court exercised its discretion to direct that each party bears their own costs. The applicant's bill of costs was not allowed as there was no basis for taxation in the absence of substantive litigation or objection from the respondents.
Court Disposition
Each party to bear their own costs.
Orders
- Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
JM (Minor Suing through his Next Friend and Father JMT) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 47 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 15636 (KLR) (20 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 15636 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 47 of 2019
LN Mbugua, J
December 20, 2022
Between
JM (Minor Suing through his Next Friend and Father JMT)
Applicant
and
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife
1st Respondent
The Attorney General
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. On May 5, 2022, this suit was marked as settled. The ruling herein relates to the issue of costs, of which the parties have filed their submissions. The ex parte applicant avers that following a snake bite incident on October 16, 2014, he filed a claim of compensation before the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee which claim was rejected but was later allowed on appeal before the National Environmental Tribunal on October 25, 2018. The award given was for ksh. 1,000,0000.
2. The exparte applicant then filed this suit seeking orders of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay out the compensation suit. The amounts were settled during the course of the suit. The ex applicant then filed a bill of costs which was apparently not objected to by the respondents, hence the bill before the Registrar should be allowed.
3. In support of his arguments, the exparte applicant relied on various authorities including Kenneth Kiplagat t/a Kiplagat & Associates v National Housing Corporation [2005] eKLR, Omulele & Tollo Advocates v Magnum Properties Limited [2016] eKLR and Joseph Oduor Anode v Kenya Red Cross Society[2012] eKLR.
4. The respondents did not file and serve their submissions by November 25, 2022 as directed by the court.
5. The provisions of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, stipulates 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……”
6. In the Supreme Court of Kenya case of Baridi Felix Mbevo v Musee Mati & 2 others [2021] eKLR, it was stated that;“It is trite that we have an inherent jurisdiction to make orders on costs. In the Jasbir Singh Rai case at paragraph 11, This court established that costs fall under the inherent powers of the court ….”
7. The orders given by this court on May 5, 2022after the matter was marked as settled reads as follows:“The issue of costs is to be agreed upon by theparties failure to which the court shall determine the same. Mention on October 25, 2022”.
8. Come the date of October 25, 2022and the counsel for the exparte-applicant addressed the court as follows; “we can file submissions on costs” and this was acceptable to the rival party.
9. It is clear that by November 25, 2022, the parties had not agreed on costs, and the proposal to file submissions was the fall back. That being the case, on what basis did the exparte applicant proceed to tax their bill of costs before the Deputy Registrar? None!.
10. I have keenly perused the record. I find that the respondents came into the picture on February 24, 2020and immediately, they set in motion the process of settlement. To this end, there were no protracted legal battles herein. Indeed the matter remained at the leave stage, thus the Substantive Judicial Review Motion did not see the light of day!
11. In the circumstances and taking into account the provisions of article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution, I direct that each party bears their own costs of the suit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-M/s Mugo holding brief for Mr. Wambugu for ApplicantCourt assistant: Eddel