[2013] KEHC 6812 (KLR)
The court found that the Defendant vacated the suit premises, effectively conceding the Plaintiff's claim for eviction. There was no appearance or explanation from the Defendant regarding the vacation of the premises or opposition to the Plaintiff's claim for costs. Applying section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6812 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nir-Sha Plastics Manufacturers Ltd; Defendant: Maureen Ogema Ondatto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 247 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit; suit marked as withdrawn.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Periodic Tenancy, Eviction Proceedings, Costs Award
- 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
Nir-Sha Plastics Manufacturers Ltd
Plaintiff
Maureen Ogema Ondatto
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs after the Defendant vacated the premises and the suit was withdrawn.
- 2 Whether there is any good reason to deny the Plaintiff costs in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Defendant vacated the suit premises, effectively conceding the Plaintiff's claim for eviction. There was no appearance or explanation from the Defendant regarding the vacation of the premises or opposition to the Plaintiff's claim for costs. Applying section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that costs should follow the event, and there was no good reason presented to deny the Plaintiff its costs. Therefore, the Plaintiff was awarded the costs of the suit.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit; suit marked as withdrawn.
Orders
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO 247 OF 2011
NIR-SHA PLASTICS MANUFACTURERS LTD…..…..….... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MAUREEN OGEMA ONDATTO........................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. In this suit the Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant was its periodic tenant in certain residential premises; that on 7th April 2011 the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant a 2-month notice to vacate the premises; and that the Defendant has failed or neglected to vacate the premises. The main relief sought in the plaint is an order of eviction.
2. The Defendant entered appearance and filed defence. She denied receiving any notice to terminate her tenancy; that in any event the pleaded notice to terminate was defective, malicious and distorted; and that there were no lawful grounds to terminate her tenancy. She did not deny that she was a periodic tenant.
3. The Plaintiff subsequently filed notice of motion dated 29th August 2011 seeing summary judgment under Order 36, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). The Defendant opposed the application by grounds of opposition dated 2nd December 2011.
4. When the application came up for hearing on 24th March 2012 the Plaintiff’s learned counsel informed the Court that the suit had been overtaken by the event of the Defendant having vacated the suit premises. Upon his application the suit was marked as withdrawn. The issue of costs would be canvassed subsequently.
5. That issue was canvassed on 3rd July 2012. There was no appearance for the Defendant despite the date having been given in court in the presence of her learned counsel.
6. I have considered the submission of the Plaintiff’s learned counsel. Costs are at the discretion of the court; but they must follow the event unless for good reason the Court orders otherwise. See section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21.
7. The event here is that the Defendant conceded the Plaintiff’s suit by vacating the suit premises. At any rate she has not offered any other explanation for vacating. In the circumstances the Plaintiff is entitled to costs, and I find no good reason to deny it costs.
8. I will award costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013