Municipal Council Of Mavoko v Galot Industries Limited [2014] KEELC 572 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ruled that a defendant who pays a disputed claim before judgment must still pay the winner's legal costs unless a signed costs agreement is filed in court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to costs of the suit and application
The Plaintiff was the successful litigant as the Defendant paid the demanded rates out of court, and costs follow the event
The court exercised its discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although costs are discretionary, that discretion must be exercised judicially. The 'event' means the result of the entire litigation. The Defendant settled the demanded amount out of court and obtained rates clearance certificates, making the Plaintiff the successful litigant. The alleged agreement that each party bear its own costs was not filed in court, so the Plaintiff was entitled to costs.
Whether an alleged agreement on costs could displace the costs-follow-the-event rule
An unfiled alleged agreement on costs could not displace the default rule on costs
The Defendant alleged there was consent that each party meet its own costs, but no such agreement was produced or filed in court. Without evidence of such an agreement, the general rule that costs follow the event applied, and depriving the successful party of costs would require proper grounds supported by evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court but shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
- A party who succeeds in litigation is entitled to costs from the losing party
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is marked as compromised, the Defendant having paid all the outstanding rates
- 2.The Defendant/Respondent to pay costs of the suit and the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (as cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Municipal Council Of Mavoko v Galot Industries Limited [2014] KEELC 572 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). ELC No. 245 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/572/eng@2014-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.