Judge orders Kakuzi to bear costs of suit against rights body
Entrance to Kakuzi Plc offices in Murang'a County on October 14, 2020.
The High Court has ordered the British-owned agricultural company Kakuzi Plc to bear the costs of a defamation case it had filed against the Kenya Human Rights Commission in March last year.
The firm had sued the lobby and Ndula Resource Centre over allegations that it has over the years condoned violence, killings, rape and labour injustices. It, however, withdrew the suit in July.
The allegations were contained in an article that was published on February 14 following the settlement of a case in the UK, where 85 Kenyans were awarded Sh696 million by its parent firm Camelia Plc.
Kakuzi said the article could severely affect its business.
Through Kaplan & Stratton Advocates, Kakuzi described the article published on the KHRC website as untrue and misleading. It wanted the commission compelled to pull it down and publish a correction.
Kakuzi said that besides the atrocities said to have been committed since 2003, KHRC also accused it of bad corporate governance and gross historical and land injustices which have displaced more than 13 neighbouring communities within Murang'a and adjacent counties'.
The matter was, however, closed when the firm withdrew the petition on July 27 last year. Interestingly, there was no agreement between the parties on the issue of costs.
Justice Anthony Mrima yesterday ordered the firm to bear the costs since it is the one that filed the lawsuit. He declined the company’s request to order each party to bears its costs.
Independent team
“The termination of the petition was after the KHRC filed responses to the petition. The reason for withdrawal of the petition by Kakuzi was given as to enable investigations by an independent team,” said the judge.
He added that the relationship between the two parties has been blurred for such a long time and has been characterised by several litigations within and outside the country.
“By taking into account the nature of this matter, the circumstances under which it was instituted and the conduct and relationship of the parties, this court finds that the befitting order is that Kakuzi do bear the costs of the withdrawn petition,” said Justice Mrima.
Kakuzi had submitted that the petition was a legitimate effort to enforce its rights under the Constitution, adding that it was a matter of public interest. In this vein, it argued that public interest matters ought to be exempted from award of costs.
Kakuzi further stated that it never sought damages against the rights groups, adding that it had on two occasions reached out to them, asking for correction of the published information, but in vain.
It said that had the groups addressed its letters, it would not have instituted the court petition. But Justice Mrima said the matter was not a public interest litigation but rather a private lawsuit.
“This court is aware that public interest litigation matters cannot easily be withdrawn and even when parties have agreed to have the matter withdrawn, a court may refuse and order the matter to proceed for hearing,” said the judge.
