[2025] KEHC 17190 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 17190 (KLR)

The court found that the omission to award costs and interest in the original judgment was a deliberate exercise of judicial discretion and not an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Plaintiff's application for review did not meet the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 17190 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Locus Studio Limited; Defendant: Law Society of Kenya Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case E266 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JWW Mong'are
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Costs Award, Interest on Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Judgment Costs Award Interest on Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Locus Studio Limited

Plaintiff

Law Society of Kenya Housing Co-operative Society Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the omission to award costs and interest in the judgment constituted an error or mistake warranting review.
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to award costs and interest even where a party is successful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission to award costs and interest in the original judgment was a deliberate exercise of judicial discretion and not an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Plaintiff's application for review did not meet the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the grounds advanced related to the merits of the court's decision rather than a clerical or arithmetical error. The court reaffirmed that the decision not to award costs and interest was substantive and intentional, and there was nothing ambiguous or unclear in the judgment requiring clarification or correction. Consequently, the application for review was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.