Aveejoy Innovations Co. Ltd v Cadvision Mould Services Ltd

5. The parties are now at variance on the issue of costs. The Applicant seeks costs of the application, while the Respondent contends that the application was frivolous and a non-starter, hence costs should be awarded to them. 6. The matter proceeded by way of written submissions. 7. The Applicant filed submissions dated 2nd July 2025, arguing that they were forced to institute these proceedings because the Respondent failed to comply with court-ordered installments and moved assets to evade execution. They contend that the Respondent only panicked and settled the debt after these proceedings were filed. Thus, they are entitled to legal fees and filing costs. 8. The Respondent, on the other hand, in their submissions dated 15th October 2025, argued that the application was a non-starter as they were already in the process of paying and experiencing financial challenges. They further argue that the Applicant filed the motion on the same day the proclamation notice was served, failing to exhaust remedies under Section 39 of the Small Claims Court Act. They seek for the application to be dismissed with costs. Analysis and Determination 9. Having carefully considered the application, the response thereto, and the parties’ rival submissions, I find that the only issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the costs of the application. 10. It is trite law that the issue of Costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that is granted to a party at the conclusion of a legal action and proceedings in any litigation. The proviso of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 holds that Costs follow the events. By the event, it means the outcome and the results of the legal action. 11. In the present case, it is clear from evidence that the Respondent was granted leave to liquidate the decretal sum in instalments but defaulted. The Auctioneer’s affidavit demonstrates that execution by attachment was frustrated as no attachable property was found. 12. The Applicant was therefore entitled to seek alternative modes of execution, including lifting the corporate veil. While the threshold for piercing the veil is high, the application was not frivolous as alleged by the Respondent. It was a legitimate attempt to enforce a valid decree. 13. The Respondent’s argument that the application was a non-starter is weakened by the fact that their default and evasive conduct necessitated the proceedings. 14. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise for good reason. The “event” here is the Respondent’s eventual settlement of the decretal sum, albeit belatedly and only after the application was filed. 15. Accordingly, the Court allows the present application and issues the following orders: 16. i. The Respondent shall bear the costs of the application dated 26th June 2024, which is hereby assessed at Kshs.75,000/=. ii. Interest on costs shall accrue at court rates from with effect from the date of this Ruling until payment in full. It is so ordered. SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 15TH JANUARY 2026 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/189/eng@2026-01-15 2

page 2 of 3

ADO MOSES JUDGE In the presence of: C/A – Moses N/A..........for the Applicant. Ms. Muthii..for the Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/189/eng@2026-01-15 3

page 3 of 3