' The applicant shall have the costs of the application dated 29 October 2024 notwithstanding that the same was never prosecuted and was compromised by the parties prior to its hearing. This is on the basis that filing of the application was necessitated by the inaction of the respondent.
The costs shall be based on the advocates remuneration order. The court is not persuaded that the applicant ought to be awarded the astronomical figure of Kshs 250,000 against a public entity.
In short, the record will show that the applicant filed the above- mentioned application in this court and thereafter appeared for two mentions in total. It is not lost on me that from the outset the respondent stated that the application was not opposed and that it needed to hold a meeting in order to action the request of the applicant. This was duly done as promised and by the next mention the matter had been resolved.
I do not think there is any justification to depart from the remuneration orders as the appropriate basis upon which costs ought to be taxed or calculated. Nor is it the role of the High Court to assess the costs arising out proceedings in the lower court and to award the same after the compromise of an application.
The final order is that the applicant shall have the costs of the application dated 29th October 2024 which costs shall to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar in the ordinary manner and based on the remuneration order. The applicant shall bear its own costs of the present application seeking costs in the sum of Kshs 250,000 which I have determined is not justified.
The file is marked as closed
'
The costs shall be based on the advocates remuneration order. The court is not persuaded that the applicant ought to be awarded the astronomical figure of Kshs 250,000 against a public entity.
In short, the record will show that the applicant filed the above- mentioned application in this court and thereafter appeared for two mentions in total. It is not lost on me that from the outset the respondent stated that the application was not opposed and that it needed to hold a meeting in order to action the request of the applicant. This was duly done as promised and by the next mention the matter had been resolved.
I do not think there is any justification to depart from the remuneration orders as the appropriate basis upon which costs ought to be taxed or calculated. Nor is it the role of the High Court to assess the costs arising out proceedings in the lower court and to award the same after the compromise of an application.
The final order is that the applicant shall have the costs of the application dated 29th October 2024 which costs shall to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar in the ordinary manner and based on the remuneration order. The applicant shall bear its own costs of the present application seeking costs in the sum of Kshs 250,000 which I have determined is not justified.
The file is marked as closed
'