[2017] KEHC 9968 (KLR)
The court held that there was no legal reason provided by the clients to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The court found that the advocate, as the successful party, was entitled to the costs of the suit. The fact that the clients had paid a portion of the fees before the suit or that some...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9968 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: William C. Githara T/A Githara & Associates Advocates; Defendant: Burrell International Ltd; Defendant: Macharia Paul Mwithaga; Defendant: Principal Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 252 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff (advocate).
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Disputes
- 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
William C. Githara T/A Githara & Associates Advocates
Plaintiff
Burrell International Ltd
Defendant
Macharia Paul Mwithaga
Defendant
Principal Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Costs After Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful party (the advocate) is entitled to the costs of the suit in addition to taxed costs already awarded.
- 2 Whether any legal justification exists to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there was no legal reason provided by the clients to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The court found that the advocate, as the successful party, was entitled to the costs of the suit. The fact that the clients had paid a portion of the fees before the suit or that some applications were lost did not justify denying the advocate the costs of the suit. The court emphasized that any costs awarded to the opposite party for lost applications would have been addressed at the time of those applications, and the advocate could not claim those specific costs. However, for the overall suit, the advocate was entitled to costs as the successful party.
Court Disposition
Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff (advocate).
Orders
- The costs of the suit are awarded to the successful party, the advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 252 OF 2014
WILLIAM C. GITHARA
T/A GITHARA & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES……..…...…..…..PLAINTIFF
AND
BURRELL INTERNATIONAL LTD…………….….………1ST DEFENDANT
MACHARIA PAUL MWITHAGA………….………………2ND DEFENDANT
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LANDS,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT………..……..3RD DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………..……………..4TH DEFENDANT
RULING ON THE COSTS OF THE SUIT
1. The court has already granted judgement in favour of the advocates, in respect to the taxed costs.
2. The issue that was left unresolved was in relation to the costs of the suit; as the court already awarded costs of the application pursuant to which judgement was granted.
3. It is the prayer of the advocate that the clients should also pay the costs of the suit.
4. However, the clients reasoned that as they had already a portion of the fees before the suit was filed, that means that there had been no need for the advocate to file the suit.
5. The clients further reasoned that most of the reliefs sought had already been spent. The clients also added that the advocates had lost some applications within the suit.
6. When the court makes a determination of an application within a suit, the court is also expected to make a determination on the question of the costs for that application.
7. Therefore, if the advocates lost some applications within the case, presumably the court gave an appropriate order on account of the costs of such application.
8. Thereafter, even if the advocate finally won the suit, he could not then become entitled to the costs which had been awarded to the opposite party.
9. During the process of taxation, the Taxing Officer would normally satisfy herself whether or not any costs which are being claimed, had been awarded to the party claiming such costs.
10. In this case, the clients have not provided the court with any reason, in law, to warrant a deviation from the standard expectation, which is, that costs shall follow the event.
11. In the event, the costs of the suit are also awarded to the successful party, who is the advocate.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 31st dayof July 2017.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
………………………………………………for the Plaintiff
…………………………………………for the 1st Defendant
…………………………………………for the 2nd Defendant
…………………………………………for the 3rd Defendant
………………………………………….for the 4th Defendant
Collins Odhiambo – Court clerk.