[2025] KEHC 6083 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6083 (KLR)

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling, which had ordered the Respondent to pay costs to the Appellant despite the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. Applying the principle that costs follow the event, the court held that the Appellant, as the unsuccessful party, should bear the costs of the appeal. The court exercised its review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules to correct the error and ordered that the Appellant pay the costs of both the appeal and the application to the Respondent.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6083 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Charles Mwaura Karanja; Respondent: Lucia Wanjiru Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E213 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Outcome
Application for review allowed; previous order on costs reviewed.
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Costs Follow Event, Error Apparent on Record
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Costs Follow Event Error Apparent on Record

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Mwaura Karanja

Appellant

Lucia Wanjiru Karanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the award of costs in the ruling delivered on 15th July, 2024.
  2. 2 Whether the court should review its previous order on costs to align with the principle that costs follow the event.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling, which had ordered the Respondent to pay costs to the Appellant despite the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. Applying the principle that costs follow the event, the court held that the Appellant, as the unsuccessful party, should bear the costs of the appeal. The court exercised its review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules to correct the error and ordered that the Appellant pay the costs of both the appeal and the application to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; previous order on costs reviewed.

Orders

  • The Ruling and Order issued on 15th July, 2024 is partially reviewed to the extent that the Appellant shall pay the costs of the Appeal to the Respondent.
  • The Appellant shall also pay the Respondent the costs of the application.