[2008] KEHC 2743 (KLR)
The court exercised its discretion on costs, noting that although costs generally follow the event, the circumstances of this case—where the applicant was compelled to seek vesting orders after a public auction and the matter was ultimately compromised after 11 years—justified a departure from the usual rule. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2743 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Philan Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Nairobi City Council; Respondent: Abdulla Hussein; Respondent: Manidhar Purshottamds Amin; Respondent: Abdul Aziz Suleman
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 1125 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Costs After Compromise of Originating Summons
- Outcome
- Each party to bear its own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Discretion of Court, Public Auction Procedure
- 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
Philan Holdings Ltd
Applicant
Nairobi City Council
Respondent
Abdulla Hussein
Respondent
Manidhar Purshottamds Amin
Respondent
Abdul Aziz Suleman
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Costs After Compromise of Originating Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant or the 1st respondent should bear the costs of the suit after compromise.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order each party to bear its own costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion on costs, noting that although costs generally follow the event, the circumstances of this case—where the applicant was compelled to seek vesting orders after a public auction and the matter was ultimately compromised after 11 years—justified a departure from the usual rule. The court found that both the applicant and the 1st respondent contributed to the delay and complexity, and that there was no clear blame on either side. Therefore, it was appropriate for each party to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
Each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- The applicant and the 1st respondent, City Council of Nairobi, shall each bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 1125 OF 1997
PHILAN HOLDINGS LTD …….............………………… PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
NAIROBICITY COUNCIL ……….………………1ST RESPONDENT
ABDULLA HUSSEIN …………....……………. 2ND RESPONDENT
MANIDHAR PURSHOTTAMDS AMIN…...….. 3RD RESPONDENT
ABDUL AZIZ SULEMAN ……………….…… 4TH RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
On the issue of costs
1: Background
1. This matter has been compromised. A background briefly being that rates were due for property LR 209/2566 to the 1st respondent, City Counsel of Nairobi. The property was sold by public auction on 13th May, 1994 and purchased by the applicant. Instead of applying to the High Court for vesting orders, the applicant applied to the subordinate court (RMCC 406/92). The said orders were quashed by the High Court (HCCC MISC 583/95) for want of jurisdiction.
2. The applicant filed this present originating summons (16th December, 1997) on 17th December, 1997 seeking vesting orders.
3. On 9th April, 2008 (11 years later) parties concede to the application. Orders as to costs against the interested party and the 2nd and 3rd respondents and respondent were that each of the litigants would bear their own costs. The applicant and the 1st respondent, City Council of Nairobi wished for this court to determine the issue of costs between the two parties.
II: Issue of costs
4. The applicant Philan Holdings Limited recommends to court that each party bears its own costs. The reasons being that the applicant brought the suit in a public auction and had no choice but to apply for vesting orders. It had no option but enjoin the City Council of Nairobi. There having been no blame costs follows the events. The applicants therefore prays each party to bear its own costs.
5. In reply the 1st respondent, the City Council of Nairobi prays that parties are bound by their pleadings. The only reasons there was no vesting orders was due to objection of sale being taken by the interested party. That costs be paid to the City Council of Nairobi.
6. The interested party made no submissions.
III Opinion
7. It is the discretion of the court as to costs. Though costs follows the events in this situation, it is the City Council of Nairobi, (1st respondent herein) who should have made all efforts to ensure that this matter was finalized. They are the ones who sold the property to the applicant. The applicant made an error in first filing the matter in the wrong court but they finally filed the matter in this High Court. It has taken 11 years to deal with the vesting orders. The parties kindly compromised this matter and each agree that they bear their own costs. I would in the circumstances use my discretion and order that the 1st respondent and the applicant bear their own costs.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2008 AT NAIROBI
M. A. ANG’AWA
J U D G E
D. Mungata instructed by Gichuru Mungata & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
I.W. Maina instructed by E.N. Omotii & Co. Advocates for the 1st respondent – present
D. Mungata holding brief for J.O. Areba instructed by Sharad Rao & Co. Advocates for the interested party - present