[2007] KEHC 2573 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court
- Case number
- 2573
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2573 (KLR)
- Decided
- 21 June 2007
- Parties
- raw
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureRespondent's Application for Review of Costs OrderCoramG. B. M. KARIUKI
Holding
The order for costs was an error and is varied to reflect the intention of the court, with the Respondent bearing the costs of the appeal.
Facts
The Appellant (Mukonyole) was successful in an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Committee. The Respondent (Wambulwa) did not attend the hearing of the appeal and lost.
Issues
- Whether the order for costs should have followed the event with the costs awarded to the successful party (Mukonyole) rather than the unsuccessful party (Wambulwa)
- Whether the order for costs was made in error and could be reviewed
Reasoning
The order for costs was not in line with the intention of the court, as the successful party (Mukonyole) was not awarded costs. The court held that the order was made in error and varied it to reflect the intention of the court.
Outcome
The Appellant's application for review of the costs order was allowed.
Orders
- The Respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21
Cases cited (4)
- RANIGA v. JIVRAJ (1965) EA 700
- AHMED H. MULJI v. SHIRINBHAI JADAVJI (1963) EA 217
- WANGECHI KIMATA AND ANOTHER v. MUTAHI WABIRU C.A. Civil Appeal No. 80 Of 1985
- Shanzu Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of Lands C.A. Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1993
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…