[2010] KEHC 518 (KLR)
The court held that the ex parte applicant was the successful party in the judicial review proceedings, having obtained the orders sought, regardless of whether the outcome was achieved by consent or after a contested hearing. The court found that the interested party initiated proceedings in the wrong forum, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman, Western Province Land Appeals Committee; Applicant: Chrisantus Mayende Mang’oli; Defendant: Protus Simiyu Waswa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment in Judicial Review Proceedings
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the ex parte applicant against the interested party.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Judicial Review Proceedings, Discretion of Court
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Chairman, Western Province Land Appeals Committee
Respondent
Chrisantus Mayende Mang’oli
Applicant
Protus Simiyu Waswa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Costs After Consent Judgment in Judicial Review Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicant, as the successful party in judicial review proceedings, is entitled to costs against the interested party.
- 2 Whether the fact that the matter was concluded by consent affects the award of costs.
- 3 Whether the interested party, having initiated proceedings in the wrong forum, should bear the costs incurred by the ex parte applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the ex parte applicant was the successful party in the judicial review proceedings, having obtained the orders sought, regardless of whether the outcome was achieved by consent or after a contested hearing. The court found that the interested party initiated proceedings in the wrong forum, which necessitated the applicant's participation and expenses in defending his rights. Applying section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court determined that there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The interested party, being the cause of the litigation, was ordered to bear the costs incurred by the ex parte applicant in these proceedings...
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the ex parte applicant against the interested party.
Orders
- The interested party shall meet the costs of these judicial review proceedings and other forums regarding this matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
MISC. APPL. NO.10 OF 2006 (JR)
REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
~VRS~
THE CHAIRMAN,WESTERNPROVINCE LAND
APPEALS COMMITTEE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE
CHRISANTUS MAYENDEMANG’OLI :::::::::::::: APPLICANT
AND
PROTUS SIMIYU WASWA:::::::: :::::::::: INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
The exparte Applicant filed these judicial review proceedings against the interested party and the Respondents. The proceedings did not take off for the reason that the parties by consent recorded on the 7/12/2009 agreed to have the orders in the application granted. However, the parties failed to agree on the issue of costs. The counsels agreed to file submissions for the court to make a ruling.
Only the exparte Applicant counsel filed submissions in this matter. Mr. Makali referred the court to the provisions of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The section provides that“costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, subject to any statutory limitations.” Further that “the costs shall follow the event” unless there is good reason to order otherwise.
It is the contention of the exparte Applicant that he is the successful party and he ought to be paid costs. It was further argued that the interest party took the case to the tribunal which was the wrong forum and therefore ought to meet the expenses incurred by the exparte Applicant in the whole litigation process.
It would have been an advantage to this court to have the submission of the interested party on this subject of costs. In the absence of the input of the interested party the court will have regard to the law and to the facts of this case.
The interested party filed the case before the tribunal. The exparte Applicant appeared to defend his rights. The case ended in favour of the interested party. The award was confirmed as judgment of the court. The Applicant appealed against the award and the Western Province Appeals Board confirmed the tribunal’s decision. The law is that costs follow the event and the successful party gets the costs. In these judicial review proceedings, the successful party is the exparte Applicant because he got the order he sought for in these proceedings. It does not matter whether a consent was recorded or the matter was canvassed before the court to the very end. In all the forums attended by the parties, expenses were incurred by each party. The interested party is the one who kicked the ball in the wrong court and ought to bear the costs. It would be contrary to the provisions of section 27 of the Act to condemn the exparte Applicant to pay costs for any of the forums. In this case, there is no issue that calls for the discretion of the court.
I therefore rule that the interested party meets the costs of these judicial review proceedings and for other forums regarding this matter.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Ruling delivered and dated at Bungoma on the 1st day of December, 2010 in the presence of Mrs. Njalale for Makali for the applicant and Mr. Karira for Kraido for the Respondent.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE