Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involved a judicial review application by Grain Bulk Handlers Limited (ex parte applicant) against Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) regarding a notice inviting tenders for a grain bulk handling facility. The applicant obtained a stay of proceedings, but KPA canceled the notice on October 4, 2008. Coast Silos Limited (Interested Party) joined the case in November 2008, seeking to vacate the stay, which was dismissed. The main motion was withdrawn in 2012 via a consent order, with the court determining that no party succeeded on the merits, leading to an order for each party to bear its own costs.
Issues
The court determined the entitlement to costs following the withdrawal of the judicial review application. The Interested Party sought costs for defending the suit, while the ex parte applicant and respondent agreed to bear their own costs. The court analyzed the principle that costs follow the event, concluding that no party succeeded on the merits, hence each party should bear its own costs.
Holdings
The court determined that each party should bear its own costs in the litigation. The Interested Party's application for costs was dismissed, as they were not a successful party in the matter. The ex parte applicant and respondent agreed to each bear their own costs, and the court concluded that there was no successful party on the merits of the case. The judgment emphasized the principle that costs follow the event, but in this instance, the withdrawal of the suit and cancellation of the notice by the respondent rendered the dispute moot, precluding a full award of costs to any party.
Remedies
The court ruled that each party should bear its own costs as there was no successful party on the merits of the case. The application for costs by the Interested Party was denied, and the ex parte applicant and respondent agreed to each bear their own costs.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that costs follow the event, meaning the successful party in litigation is generally entitled to costs unless the court finds fault or other good reasons to depart from this rule. This was supported by references to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and cases like Jesse Mburu Gitau vs. AG (2003) eKLR and Devram Nanji Dattani vs Haridas Kalidas Dawda (1949) 16 EACA 35.
Precedent Name
- Singh v. Qurbanlite Ltd
- Republic v. Senior Principal Magistrate, Mombasa and Ors. Ex-Parte Nicholas Katumo Peter
- Jesse Mburu Gitau & 3 Others vs. AG
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
- Kasango
- Edward M. Muriithi
- Ibrahim
Passage Text
- The court concluded that 'the ex parte applicant triumphed in having the offending notice removed' and that 'there was no successful party on the merits of the case, and therefore no basis for an award of the full costs to any party.'
- The court held that 'a party who by conduct causes another to seek relief in court or who seeks court's intervention upon grounds that the court ultimately dismisses as unmeritorious must be ready to meet the costs incurred by the other party.'
- Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise, and the court has discretion to determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid.