[2017] KEHC 3954 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any new or important matter or error apparent on the face of the record to justify review of the appellate judgment regarding costs of the primary suit. Awarding such costs would amount to double compensation, as the appellant had already been awarded costs of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3954 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Francis Wambugu; Respondent: Bhogals Garage Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 119 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- Application partly allowed.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Award of Costs, Interest on Damages
- 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
John Francis Wambugu
Appellant
Bhogals Garage Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a review and variation of the appellate judgment to award costs of the primary suit.
- 2 Whether interest should be awarded on special and general damages from the date of the primary suit judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any new or important matter or error apparent on the face of the record to justify review of the appellate judgment regarding costs of the primary suit. Awarding such costs would amount to double compensation, as the appellant had already been awarded costs of the appeal. However, the court noted that the appellate judgment was silent on the issue of interest on special and general damages. Exercising its discretion under Sections 26, 99, and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court awarded interest on both special and general damages from the date of the primary suit judgment at court rates. The application thus succeeded only to...
Court Disposition
Application partly allowed.
Orders
- Interest on both special and general damages awarded from the date of the primary suit judgment (19th April 2010) at court rates.
- No award of costs on the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 119 OF 2010
JOHN FRANCIS WAMBUGU............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
BHOGALS GARAGE LTD.............................................................RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the Judgment/Decree of Honourable C.A. Otieno Resident Magistrate, Nakuru delivered on 19th April 2010 in Nakuru CMCC No.1586 of 2006))
RULING
1. The appellant by his application dated 3rd December 2016 seeks an Order of Review and variation of the judgment of the court in the appeal dated 14th July 2016 by ordering the Respondent to pay costs of the lower court case that he had lost but allowed on appeal. It is his contention that as he succeeded in the Appeal, the respondent ought to pay costs in the primary suit.
He brings the application under the provisions of Order 45 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3A and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The application is opposed by grounds of opposition filed on the 25th January 2017. I have considered both the grounds in support and in opposition of the application and submissions.
2. The trial court judgment was set aside in its entirely including the award of costs, and substituted with a judgment in favour of the appellant together with costs in this appeal.
The provisions of Order 45 Rule I of the Civil Procedure Rules presupposes that there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or decree.
3. The applicant has not in any way demonstrated any new or important matter or an error on the face of the decree. See HCCA No. 126 of 2009 Michael Kungu Kigioa -vs- KNUT (2013) e KLR.
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court wide discretion to award costs as it deems fit. The primary suit was dismissed with costs. The appellant who was the plaintiff was awarded costs of the appeal. To award costs of the primary suit to the appellant, in my view would amount to double compensation. I find no basis to award either costs nor interest to the appellant on the primary suit.
4. In the appeal judgment dated the 14th July 2016, costs were awarded to the appellant upon the awards granted on both special and general damages by the trial court. The court did not however determine the matter of interest rates and the commencement date of the application of interest.
Section 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Actempowers the court to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in decrees or orders at any time on such terms as it thinks fit. Section 26 thereof further empowers the court to order interest at such reasonable rates upon the principal sum from some date as it may determine See Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1999 – Abok James Odera & Associates -vs- John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates (2013) e KLR.
Having noted that the judgment is silent on the matter of interest, I am persuaded, both on my own motion and by the applicant to award interest on both the special and general damages from the date of the primary suit judgment that is on the 19th April 2010 at court rates.
5. To that extent the appellant's application dated 3rd December 2016 Succeeds in terms of Prayer No. 3only.
No award of costs on the application is granted.
Dated, Signed and Delivered this 20th Day of July 2017.
J.N. MULWA
JUDGE