[2022] KEHC 1372 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the application dated 7th November 2019, as the issue of costs had been omitted in the original order of 15th October 2020. Since the respondents did not oppose the application for review and there was no legal or factual reason to depart from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1372 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Norgen Enterprises Limited; Respondent: County Secretary, County Government of Vihiga; Respondent: County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Vihiga; Respondent: County Government of Vihiga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed in part.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Costs Award, Review of 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
Norgen Enterprises Limited
Applicant
County Secretary, County Government of Vihiga
Respondent
County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Vihiga
Respondent
County Government of Vihiga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the application dated 7th November 2019, which were omitted in the original order.
- 2 Whether the respondents should bear the costs of the review application dated 26th March 2021.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the application dated 7th November 2019, as the issue of costs had been omitted in the original order of 15th October 2020. Since the respondents did not oppose the application for review and there was no legal or factual reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, the court granted the applicant the costs for the earlier application. However, the court held that the respondents should not be penalized for the costs of the present review application dated 26th March 2021, as they had no role in the oversight that necessitated it. Therefore, each party was ordered to bear their own costs for the review...
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed in part.
Orders
- The order dated 15th October 2020 is reviewed to include an award of costs to the applicant for the application dated 7th November 2019.
- Each party shall bear their own costs for the application dated 26th March 2021.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC. APPL. NO. 14 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NORGEN ENTERPRISES LTD
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY WAY OF MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 2, 103, 147 & 148 OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 44 & 45 OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT, 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT, CHAPTER 40, LAW OF KENYA
NORGEN ENTERPRISES LIMITED........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE COUNTY SECRETARY,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF VIHIGA.........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MEMBER
FOR FINANCE, COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF VIHIGA..........................2ND RESPONDENT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF VIHIGA..............................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
The application dated 26th March 2021 is for the review of the order made on 15th October 2020.
1. In the ruling dated 15th October 2020 the Court granted an Order of Mandamus directed at the County Secretary, County Government of Vihiga; the County Executive Member for Finance, County Government of Vihiga; and the County Government of Vihiga to pay to the Applicant the sum of Kshs 11,975,250/= together with interest at Court rates of 14% per annum from the date of filing suit, together with Kshs 334,855. 90 in respect of the costs of the suit in Kisumu CMCC No. 68 of 2017.
2. It has now been drawn to my attention that although the Applicant had asked the Court to award it the costs of the application dated 7th November 2019, the Court did not make a determination on that issue. It is for that reason that the Applicant sought a review of the Order, so as to incorporate an order for costs.
3. Although the Respondents were duly served, they did not answer to the application. Effectively, therefore, the application was unopposed.
4. Secondly, and in any event, costs ordinarily follow the event.
5. I find no reason in law, or in fact which could cause the Court to deviate from the ordinary course.
6. Therefore, I grant the orders sought, thus reviewing the order dated 15th October 2020; and grant to the Applicant the costs of the application dated 7th November 2019.
7. However, as the Respondents had no role in the oversight that led to the filing of the application dated 26th March 2021, it would be unfair to condemn them to pay the costs for it.
8. Accordingly, each party will meet his or her own costs of the application dated 26th March 2021.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMU
This10thday of March2022
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE