Kiama Stephen Gitahi v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & another;Public Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Kiama Stephen Gitahi v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & others [2020] eKLR case summary, highlighting key legal principles and implications for public service and education sectors.

Case Brief: Kiama Stephen Gitahi v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & another;Public Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Prof. Kiama Stephen Gitahi v. The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 7 of 2020
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court include:
1. Whether costs should be awarded to the 2nd Interested Party (University of Nairobi) despite the case being resolved through a consent order.
2. The interpretation of the consent order regarding the allocation of costs among the parties involved.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Prof. Kiama Stephen Gitahi, filed a petition against the Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Education and the Attorney General, alongside other interested parties including the University of Nairobi, regarding alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions related to fair administration and employment. The case was settled by a consent order on February 25, 2020, where the parties agreed to mark the petition as settled with each party bearing its own costs. However, the University of Nairobi, as the 2nd Interested Party, contested this arrangement, insisting on its right to costs from the 1st Respondent (the Cabinet Secretary), claiming it was not consulted during the consent negotiations.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Employment and Labour Relations Court, culminating in a consent order that marked the petition as settled. The parties, however, disagreed on the issue of costs, leading to the court directing that the matter be resolved through written submissions. The Respondents argued that the consent did not establish a successful litigant, and thus costs should not be awarded.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which grants the court discretion in awarding costs, and the principle that “costs follow the event,” meaning the party that succeeds in litigation is entitled to recover costs.

- Case Law: The court cited previous rulings, including *Little Africa Kenya Limited v. Andrew Mwiti Jason* and *Jasbir Singh Rai v. Tarlochan Singh Rai*, emphasizing that costs should not be punitive and must reflect the parties' conduct and the nature of the settlement. The court also referenced *Rufus Njuguna Miringu v. Martha Muriithi*, which highlighted that a consent agreement does not inherently designate a successful litigant.

- Application: The court reasoned that since the case was settled by consent, there was no successful party against whom costs could be awarded. The University of Nairobi's failure to substantiate its claim for costs further supported the decision that each party should bear its own costs. The court emphasized the importance of public interest and the need to encourage amicable resolutions, which the 1st Respondent's actions represented.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that there would be no order for costs, with each party bearing its own costs. This decision underscored the principle that in cases resolved by consent, particularly where public interest is involved, costs should not be awarded in a manner that penalizes a party acting in good faith.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling. The decision appeared unanimous in its reasoning and conclusion.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that no costs would be awarded in the case of Prof. Kiama Stephen Gitahi v. The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & Others, as the matter was settled by consent. This ruling reinforces the principle that costs in civil litigation should reflect the outcomes of disputes and the conduct of the parties, particularly in cases involving public institutions and interests. The decision promotes the resolution of disputes through consent and encourages parties to engage in amicable settlements.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Kiama-Stephen-Gitahi-v-Cabinet-Secretary-Ministry-of-Education--another-Public-Service-Commission--2-others-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1795_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries