[2008] KEHC 2273 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a further agreement requiring the plaintiff to pay Kshs.6000/- before the transfer, the defendant appeared to be retracting from the agreement based on the affidavits. Balancing the conduct of both parties and the interests of justice, the court determined that it would be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2273 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Julius Githige Kiragu; Defendant: Gathuka Murathi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 21 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Partial Consent
- Outcome
- Each party to bear its own costs.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Land Sale Agreements, Land Control Board Consent, Costs of Suit
- 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
Julius Githige Kiragu
Plaintiff
Gathuka Murathi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Partial Consent
Legal Issues
- 1 Who should bear the costs of the suit after the parties entered into a partial consent regarding transfer of land.
- 2 Whether the conduct of the parties justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a further agreement requiring the plaintiff to pay Kshs.6000/- before the transfer, the defendant appeared to be retracting from the agreement based on the affidavits. Balancing the conduct of both parties and the interests of justice, the court determined that it would be just for each party to bear their own costs, departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Court Disposition
Each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- Each party will bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Case 21 of 2001 (O.S.)
JULIUS GITHIGE KIRAGU …………….…………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GATHUKA MURATHI ….…………………….………… DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaintiff filed this action against the defendant seeking a declaration that he had acquired title over 0. 5 acres of parcel No. Mwerua/Githumbu/343. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim. He however admitted having sold to the plaintiff 0. 5 acres of that land but that the same had not been completed because of lack of land control board consent. The defendant further stated in his defence that the plaintiff had filed a previous suit namely HCCC No. 306 of 1999 seeking the orders of specific performance of the contract of sale of that land. That action was filed prior to the present action. When this matter came up for hearing the parties entered into a partial consent. On 7th February 2008 the parties recorded by consent that the defendant do transfer 0. 5 acres out of parcel No. Mwerua/Githumbu/343 upon receiving from the plaintiff Kshs.6000/-. The parties were unable to agree on who should pay the costs of the suit. They chose to submit on that issue before court for the court to determine. The plaintiff in submission stated that indeed there had been agreement for sale of that land and in that agreement the defendant had acknowledged that he had given the plaintiff possession of 0. 5 acres. In that agreement they had also agreed that the transfer would be effected on obtaining the land control board consent. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant had refused to play his part in that transaction to effect the transfer as agreed. In so doing that the defendant was taking advantage of the provisions of Cap 302. On behalf of the defendants it was argued that the parties had entered into a further agreement where the plaintiff had agreed to pay Kshs.6000/- before the transfer. That agreement was annexed to the submissions. It was dated 20th October 1989. This was on a date before the filing of his action. The defendant’s argument was that plaintiff had failed to pay the agreed Kshs.6000/-. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs should follow the event unless the court otherwise orders. What I need to determine in this case in which party succeeded so that the costs can follow the event. It is clear that there was a further agreement between the parties for further payment to be made by the plaintiff. From reading the affidavits in the matter it does also look like the defendant was retracting from the agreement. Bearing that in mind and balancing the scales of justice I am of the view that the just decision would be that each party bear their own costs. My order therefore is that each party will bear its own costs.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 30th day of June 2008.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE