THE AWARD OF COSTS – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

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

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

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

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).