[2024] KEHC 12137 (KLR)
The court found that although the general rule is that costs follow the event, judicial discretion must be exercised considering the special circumstances of the case. The petition was withdrawn before substantive hearing, with the petitioners claiming the cause of action had ceased as the 1st respondent stopped the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12137 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen ole Narupa (Suing as the Chairman, Kenya National Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Transmara Branch) & 19 others; Respondent: Transmara Sugar Company Limited; Respondent: Hussein Wario; Respondent: The Inspector General of Police; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition E012 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Withdrawal and Costs
- Outcome
- Petition withdrawn by consent; each party to bear its own costs.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Costs on Withdrawal, Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Discretion, Mutunga Rules
- 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
Stephen ole Narupa (Suing as the Chairman, Kenya National Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Transmara Branch) & 19 others
Applicant
Transmara Sugar Company Limited
Respondent
Hussein Wario
Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Withdrawal and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to costs upon withdrawal of the constitutional petition.
- 2 Whether the public interest nature of the petition affects the award of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the general rule is that costs follow the event, judicial discretion must be exercised considering the special circumstances of the case. The petition was withdrawn before substantive hearing, with the petitioners claiming the cause of action had ceased as the 1st respondent stopped the alleged harassment. The 1st respondent's claim for costs was undermined by the fact that the tractors were released upon court order and the withdrawal was by consent. The public interest nature of the petition and the circumstances of withdrawal justified each party bearing its own costs. Thus, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
Petition withdrawn by consent; each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- The petition is withdrawn by consent of the parties.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the petition.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
72 paragraphs
Narupa (Suing as the Chariman, Kenya National Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Transmara Branch) & 19 others v Transmara Sugar Company Limited & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E012 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 12137 (KLR) (3 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12137 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Narok
Constitutional Petition E012 of 2023
F Gikonyo, J
October 3, 2024
Between
Stephen ole Narupa (Suing as the Chariman, Kenya National Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Transmara Branch)
1st Petitioner
Joseph T Kanchory
2nd Petitioner
Wilson K Kimanu
3rd Petitioner
J Lekakeny Nayioma
4th Petitioner
Ann M Paswa
5th Petitioner
Julius Oltetia
6th Petitioner
Johnstone Shaai
7th Petitioner
Simon O Ng’atuny
8th Petitioner
David L Kenteyia
9th Petitioner
Simion L Nairenke
10th Petitioner
Julius M Mosoiko
11th Petitioner
Esther Rana
12th Petitioner
David Taiswa Ngeeti
13th Petitioner
Daniel Naiguta
14th Petitioner
Patrick N Leparan
15th Petitioner
Justus Leparan
16th Petitioner
Cloude Njonjo
17th Petitioner
Olkou ole Kiu
18th Petitioner
Wilson Kishoyian
19th Petitioner
Simon Nchiroine
20th Petitioner
and
Transmara Sugar Company Limited
1st Respondent
Hussein Wario
2nd Respondent
The Inspector General of Police
3rd Respondent
The Attorney General
4th Respondent
Ruling
Costs upon withdrawal of the constitutional petition 1. The petitioners made an application to withdraw the petition and all the parties consented to the withdrawal. Except, the 1st respondent prayed for costs which led this court to reserve the matter for ruling on that aspect.
2. The petitioners argued that the petition was withdrawn because Transmara Sugar had ceased harassment of farmers. The petition was a public interest litigation for the benefit of the farmers. The petitioners urged the court to have the petition withdrawn with no order as to costs.
3. The 1st respondent contends that there was never any harassment of the farmers. The petition was overtaken by events as tractors were released. The 1st respondent argued that breach of contract does not make it public interest.
4. In a rejoinder, the petitioners argued that the petition had nothing to do with the tractors.
5. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents indicated that they were not seeking costs.
Analysis And Determination. 6. This court has considered the arguments of the petitioners and the 1st respondents herein.
7. Is the 1st respondent entitled to costs?
8. The court has discretion to order costs under Rule 26 of the Mutunga Rules; the general rule being that, costs follow the event(Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others vs Tarlochan Singh & 4 others [2014] eKLR.)
9. However, judicious exercise of judicial discretion on costs, accommodates, inter alia, the special circumstances of the case while being guided by the ends of justice. The claim of public interest is a relevant factor, in the exercise of such discretion, as would also the motivations and conduct of the parties, prior to, during, and subsequent to the actual process of litigation.
10. From the record, the petition was withdrawn after the parties had filed responses but before substantive submissions to the petition. The petition, at the time of withdrawal, was ripe for hearing. However, the petitioner stated that, the petition was withdrawn because the cause of action had ceased to exist; that the 1st respondent ceased harassment of the petitioners. The 1st respondent seems to refute these claims, except stated that, the petition was overtaken by events after the tractors were released. The tractors were released upon the order of this court.
11. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot claim costs upon withdrawal of the petition in such circumstances. The kind of consent given by the parties to the withdrawal of the petition, buried underneath, all other claims including those on costs.
12. Accordingly, each party shall bear its costs of the petition.
13. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH TEAMS APPLICATION, THIS 3RDDAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. HON. F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the Presence of: -C/A: OtoloBavelaw for Petitioners – AbsentOduor for Wekhombu for 1st Respondent – Present