[2022] KEHC 16146 (KLR)
The court found that since the plaintiff withdrew the suit without a consent on costs with the 1st defendant, and the 1st defendant had incurred expenses in defending itself, the 1st defendant was entitled to costs. The court relied on the principle that costs follow the event and cited authority supporting the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16146 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Oracle Productions Limited; Defendant: Decapture Limited; Defendant: CFC Stanbic Bank Limited; Defendant: Radio Africa Limited t/a Kiss TV; Defendant: Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Commercial Civil Suit 567 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Plaintiff ordered to pay costs to the 1st defendant; 1st defendant to file bill of costs for taxation.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Costs Award, Taxation of Costs
- 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
Oracle Productions Limited
Plaintiff
Decapture Limited
Defendant
CFC Stanbic Bank Limited
Defendant
Radio Africa Limited t/a Kiss TV
Defendant
Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to costs after the plaintiff withdrew the suit without a consent on costs.
- 2 What principles should guide the court in awarding costs where a suit is withdrawn.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the plaintiff withdrew the suit without a consent on costs with the 1st defendant, and the 1st defendant had incurred expenses in defending itself, the 1st defendant was entitled to costs. The court relied on the principle that costs follow the event and cited authority supporting the entitlement to costs where a party is brought to court and the suit is withdrawn. The court ordered the 1st defendant to file a bill of costs for taxation, with the taxing master to consider that the matter, despite being in court for over 10 years, never proceeded to trial.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff ordered to pay costs to the 1st defendant; 1st defendant to file bill of costs for taxation.
Orders
- Plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant.
- 1st defendant to file a bill of costs for taxation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Oracle Productions Limited v Decapture Limited & 3 others (Commercial Civil Suit 567 of 2011) [2022] KEHC 16146 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16146 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)
Commercial and Tax
Commercial Civil Suit 567 of 2011
A Mabeya, J
December 9, 2022
Between
Oracle Productions Limited
Plaintiff
and
Decapture Limited
1st Defendant
CFC Stanbic Bank Limited
2nd Defendant
Radio Africa Limited t/a Kiss TV
3rd Defendant
Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
4th Defendant
Ruling
1. The plaintiff withdrew this suit and through consents with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant, the same was withdrawn with no order as to costs.
2. However, the 1st defendant did not reach a consent with the plaintiff on the issue of costs. It therefore urged that the costs of the suit be awarded to it.
3. The record shows that the plaintiff proposed an amount to the 1st defendant to settle the costs, which amount was not accepted by the 1st defendant.
4. Both parties filed submissions on the issue of costs which the court has considered.
5. In Pacis Insurance Company Ltd v Francis Njeru Njoka [2018] eKLR, it was held: -“A party having been caused by the other to participate in a suit, is entitled to costs incurred in the event the party instituting the suit decides to withdraw it unless parties agree otherwise or court on exercising its discretion decide otherwise after giving the parties opportunity to submit on costs.In the instant case, the suit was withdrawn after the hearing date was set. Defendant had engaged an advocate to defend the suit. Defendant is therefore expected to have incurred expenses and is entitled to costs expended.From the foregoing, I do order plaintiff to pay the defendant costs of this suit to be taxed by the Deputy Registrar.”
6. I concur with the finding above. In this case, the plaintiff brought the 1st defendant to court which caused it to instruct an advocate and incur costs in defending itself.
7. Since costs follow the event, I order the plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant. The parties have not agreed on the costs to be paid.
8. I therefore direct the 1st defendant to file a bill of costs for taxation. However, in such taxation, the taxing master shall take into consideration the fact that notwithstanding the matter being in court for over 10 years, it never proceeded to trial.It is so ordered.
DATE AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. A MABEYA, FCIArbJUDGE