Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiffs unilaterally withdrew their prayers (a), (aa), (b), and (bb) from the amended plaint without addressing the defendant's incurred costs. The court ruled that the plaintiffs must bear the defendant's costs for these withdrawals, even though the plaintiffs were the overall winners in the suit, as the costs are not assigned based on the 'costs follow the event' principle. The defendant had incurred expenses defending against the withdrawn applications, and the court emphasized that unilateral withdrawal of pleadings necessitates cost liability.
Issues
- The court considered whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay the defendant's costs arising from the unilateral withdrawal of specific prayers in their amended plaint and the associated Chamber application. The key issue was determining if the defendant's expenses, incurred in defending against these withdrawn claims, should be borne by the plaintiffs despite the lack of an order on costs at the time of withdrawal.
- The court addressed whether the defendant's failure to amend his defense when the plaintiffs introduced new claims in their amended plaint (paragraphs aa, bb, bbb) precluded him from claiming costs. The ruling emphasized that costs may still be incurred through preparation to respond, even without a formal amended defense.
Holdings
- The court ruled that the plaintiffs are liable to bear the defendant's costs in respect of the withdrawal of their prayers (a), (aa), (b), and (bb) of the amended plaint, as the withdrawal was unilateral and occurred without considering the defendant's incurred expenses.
- The court ordered that the plaintiffs shall bear the defendant's costs related to the withdrawal of the Chamber Summons dated 27th September 2004, emphasizing that the principle of costs following the event does not apply in this case.
Remedies
- The plaintiffs are ordered to bear the defendant's costs for withdrawing the Chamber Summons dated 27th September 2005.
- The plaintiffs are ordered to bear the defendant's costs for withdrawing prayers (a), (aa), (b), and (bbb) of the amended plaint.
Legal Principles
The court ruled that when a party unilaterally withdraws claims (prayers) from a suit, they remain liable for the costs incurred by the opposing party in responding to those claims. This principle was applied to the plaintiffs' withdrawal of prayers (a), (aa), (b), and (bb) in their amended plaint, as well as their Chamber application, requiring them to bear the defendant's costs.
Precedent Name
Ransley J. [2005]
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
J. B. Ojwang
Passage Text
- Affected in the plaintiffs' withdrawal notice of 7th October, 2004 were paragraphs (a), (aa), (b) and (bb) of the amended plaint. Since the withdrawal of those paragraphs was unilateral, and the applicant's costs were not considered, it follows that in principle, the costs entailed will be due to the applicant.
- Therefore, on the facts of this case, its costs are not to be assigned on the principle that costs follow the event.
- Therefore, in my opinion, the mere fact that when the plaintiffs introduced paragraphs (aa), (bb), (bbb) in their amended plaint the defendant did not also amend his defence, does not mean that the defendant incurred no costs. It should, indeed, be presumed that the defendant had incurred some minimum cost, in preparing to meet the plaintiffs' motions as expressed in their newly – introduced claims.