Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in March 2017 against the defendants, seeking a mandatory injunction, declarations regarding land ownership, and cost orders. The case was listed for dismissal in March 2022, but the plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit as the parties had resolved the matter in another court. The 1st defendant, who did not participate in the proceedings, was found not entitled to costs, and the application for costs was dismissed.
Issues
The court considered whether the 1st Defendant was entitled to costs after the Plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit. The ruling found that the 1st Defendant did not participate in proceedings and thus was not entitled to costs, citing Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event unless otherwise directed by the court. The application for costs by the 1st Defendant was dismissed as lacking merit.
Holdings
The court dismissed the 1st Defendant's application for costs, finding they did not participate in the proceedings and thus were not entitled to any costs.
Remedies
The application by the 1st Defendant is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
Probate Status
The case involved a succession matter resolved in Machakos High Court, leading to the plaintiff's withdrawal.
Legal Principles
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act establishes that costs follow the event, meaning the successful party typically recovers costs unless the court finds good reasons to deviate. The court in this case applied this principle, noting that the 1st Defendant failed to participate in proceedings and thus was not entitled to costs. The ruling emphasizes that costs are determined by the court's discretion based on factors like party conduct and litigation circumstances.
Precedent Name
Cecilia Karuru Ngayu -Vs- Barclays Bank of Kenya & Another
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
T. Murigi
Passage Text
- "In determining the issue of costs, the court is entitled to look at inter alia (i) the conduct of the parties, (ii) the subject of litigation, (iii) the circumstances that led to the institution of the proceedings, (iv) the events which eventually led to the termination, (v) the stage at which the proceedings were terminated, (vi) the manner in which they were terminated, (vii) the relationship between the parties and (viii) the need to promote reconciliation amongst the disputing parties pursuant to Article 159(2) of the constitution."
- The upshot of the foregoing is that I find that the application by the 1st Defendant is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
- Having failed to participate in the proceedings herein, I find that the 1st Defendant is not entitled to any costs.
Beneficiary Classes
Other