STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

AWARD OF COST SHOULD NOT BE ON SENTIMENT – MUST BE JUDICIAL AND JUDICIOUS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The award of costs involves a judicial discretion which must be exercised judicially and judiciously on fixed principles that is according to rules of reason and justice not according to private opinion. See Wurno v. VAC Ltd. (1956) I FSC 33 at 34. The exercise of such discretion must similarly not be affected by question of benevolence or sympathy. The award of costs is not meant to be a bonus to the successful party and should not be awarded on sentiment. See Universal Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Nwaokolo (1995) 11 Kings Law report (KLR) 919. Rewani v. Festus Okotie-Eboh (1960) 5 FSC 200 at 207. It follows therefore that the discretion of the court in awarding costs must be judicially and judiciously. It is an acceptable practice in law for appellate court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts. In this regard appellate courts seldom interfere with the exercise of discretion in awards of costs except where such discretion is not exercised judicially and judiciously. See Nwaubani v. Golden Guinea Breweries Plc. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 400) page 191. A trial judge has discretion whether to award costs or not and also as regards the person by whom the costs are to be paid.

— Abdu Aboki JCA. ACB v Ajugwo (2011) – CA/E/66/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

cost

APPEAL TO SET ASIDE COST AWARDED AGAINST COUNSEL SHOULD PROVIDE TENABLE REASON

Before I round off, learned senior counsel for the Appellant has urged this court to set aside the costs of #5 million awarded against J.O. Olotu, Esq, counsel who settled the Appellant’s brief at the lower court. Without belabouring the point, let me state clearly that the Appellant has not placed before this court, any tenable reason or argument why the lower court’s order as to costs should be set aside or interfered with. Hence, the Appellant’s prayer in that regard is refused.

— A. Jauro, JSC. PDP v INEC (2023) – SC/CV/501/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

ASSESSING COSTS

Assessment of the amount allowed in terms of the award of costs is the responsibility of the Court who determines what reasonable costs in the circumstances are. And when the Court in exercise of its discretion orders the costs payable and does so without being capricious id est in the sense that it is ordered in honest exercise of his discretion.

– P.O. Elechi, JCA. Emori v. Egwu (2016) – CA/C/259/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

INSTANCES WHERE COSTS AWARDED WERE REVERSED ON APPEAL

✓ Olasope v. National bank of Nigeria Ltd. & Anor (1985) 3 NWLR (pt 11) page 147 of 152. This court reduced the N200 costs awarded to the 1st Respondent to N100. Kutigi JCA (as he then was) said:- ‘I see no basis for awarding N200 costs to the 2nd Respondent who to all intent and purposes appears to be a busy-body as far as this suit is concerned. He voluntarily joined himself and had nothing to ask the Appellant even after testifying in court. And coupled with what his own counsel said in court below that his appearance should be discontinued. He is in my view entitled to no costs and I award none to him.’
✓ In Umarco Nigeria Ltd. v. Panelpina World transport Ltd. (1986) 1 CA (pt 2) page 324, this court set aside the N1,000 cost awarded in favour of the Respondent on the ground that this amount was not only excessive but also unreasonable having regard to the out-of-pocket expenses, the length of hearing and other relevant circumstances. See Oforn & Ors v. Odunsi (1960) NMLR 12. But in Daily Times Nigeria Ltd. v. Chief William (1986) NWLR Pt 36 page 526. The judge awarded the Respondent N1,000.00 exemplary damages and N1,000 costs. The Appellant appealed both on the exemplary damages and on the cost. On the issue of costs, it was contended that as the Respondent conducted the case himself and spent only N101.17k out-of-pocket expenses, N1,000 costs was excessive. The court held that award of N1,000 was not excessive even though the respondent out-of-pocket expenses are N101.17k . Ademola JCA (as he then was) said:- ‘On the issue of costs awarded I do not regard it as excessive because all factors must have been taken into consideration and the fact that the Respondent conducted the case himself should not necessarily be against him but could also be in favour of the Appellant in that if a counsel had been employed by the Respondent, the cost awarded could have reflected counsel cost in favour of the Respondent.’

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTORS CONSIDERED IN AWARDING COST – LITIGATION

Speaking generally, costs as between party and party are given or awarded as an indemnity to the person entitled to them, usually a successful party at the conclusion of proceedings in a case, not as a bonus to him or imposed as a punishment to the losing party. REWANE v OKOTIE-EBOH (1960) SCNLR 461; UBN v SCPOK (NIG) LTD (1998) 12 NWLR 578; OGUNMOKUN v MILAD, OSUN STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (594) 261 at 287. In addition, in awarding costs, a Court is entitled to consider among other factors, the following: a) the summons fee b) duration of the case c) legal representation d) expenses incurred by the successful party in the ordinary course of prosecuting the case. e) The value or purchasing power of the Naira at the time of the award. See ONABANJO V EWETUGA (1993) 4 NWLR ( 2 8 8 ) 4 4 3 a t 4 6 0 ; DELTA STEEL CO. LTD v AMERICAN COMP. TECH. LTD (1999) 4 NWLR (597) 53 at 68.

— H.M. Ogunwumiju, JCA. First Bank v Oronsaye (2019) – CA/B/335/13

Was this dictum helpful?

CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERED WHEN COURT IS TO AWARD COST

This Court had, per Ikongbeh, JCA in the case of UZOMA v OKORIE (2000) 15 NWLR (612) 882 at 893, held that: “Matters such as the number of years it takes to conclude a case, the number of adjournments, processes that had to be filed and the transportation of counsel to and from the Court are such that the Court may take into consideration when fixing the amount of costs and Court may not need to expressly state so. Thus … the fact that the reasoning of the trial Court on the matter was not recorded did not necessarily make the decision on costs arbitrary.” See also CITIBANK Nig Ltd. v. Ikediashi (2014) LPELR22447; Total Engineering Services Team Inc. v. Chevron (2010) LPELR5032 (CA); Emori v. Egwu (2016) LPELR-40123 (CA).

Was this dictum helpful?

COSTS FOLLOW EVENTS

Even though costs follow events,there shall be no order on costs.

— O. Ariwoola, JSC. African Intl. Bank Ltd. v Integrated Dimensional System (2012) – SC.278/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.