[2023] KEHC 26240 (KLR)
The court found that the order for costs against a non-existent 4th respondent was an apparent error on the face of the record. Both parties agreed that there was no 4th respondent in the proceedings and that the order should have been directed at the 3rd respondent. The court held that it has the power to review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 26240 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joyce Kambura Nkinda; Respondent: The Officer Commanding Meru Police Station; Respondent: The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 13 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed. Judgment reviewed to correct the party liable for costs.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Judgment Review, Apparent Error, Costs Award, Court Orders
- 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
Joyce Kambura Nkinda
Applicant
The Officer Commanding Meru Police Station
Respondent
The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can review its judgment to correct an apparent error regarding the party liable for costs.
- 2 Whether the order for costs against a non-existent 4th respondent was an inadvertent error.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order for costs against a non-existent 4th respondent was an apparent error on the face of the record. Both parties agreed that there was no 4th respondent in the proceedings and that the order should have been directed at the 3rd respondent. The court held that it has the power to review its own orders to correct such self-evident errors or omissions, as established in National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR. Accordingly, the judgment was reviewed to substitute the 3rd respondent in place of the 4th respondent as the party liable for the assessed costs of KES 100,000.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed. Judgment reviewed to correct the party liable for costs.
Orders
- Paragraph 8(c) of the judgment dated October 29, 2018 is reviewed to substitute the 3rd respondent in place of the 4th respondent as the party liable for costs.
- The costs of the Petition assessed at KES 100,000 shall be paid by the 3rd respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Nkinda (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Kenneth Mutuma Nkinda) v Officer Commanding Meru Police Station & 2 others (Petition 13 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 26240 (KLR) (30 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26240 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Petition 13 of 2018
TW Cherere, J
November 30, 2023
Between
Joyce Kambura Nkinda
Petitioner
Suing on behalf of the Estate of Kenneth Mutuma Nkinda
and
The Officer Commanding Meru Police Station
1st Respondent
The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government
2nd Respondent
The Attorney General
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. By judgment dated October 29, 2018, Majanja J entered judgment in favour of the petitioner and at paragraph 8 (c) of the final orders directed that costs of the Petition assessed at KES. 100,000/- be paid by the 4th petitioner.
2. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the order directed at 4th Respondent was made inadvertently for the reason that there was no 4th respondent in the matter. They are also in agreement that the order ought to have been directed at the 3rd Respondent:
3. A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should require no elaborate argument to be established (See National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR)
4. The error in the judgment dated October 29, 2018 is apparent and paragraph 8 (c) of the final orders is reviewed to the extent that the costs of the Petition assessed at KES. 100,000/- shall be paid not by the 4th respondent but by the 3rd respondent.
DATED AT MERU THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneFor Petitioner - Ms. Ligala for T.0. K’Opere & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondents - Ms. Mutindi