1.On April 14, 2023, this court delivered a judgement in this appeal in which we expressed ourselves, inter alia, as hereunder:
2.The Appellant is back before us, this time round vide a Notice of Motion Application dated July 24, 2023. By the said Motion, the Appellant substantially seeks an order for a review and rectification of the said judgment and orders and directions that the Respondent, Jade International Shipping Line DMCC be held liable for all costs, charges and all consequential charges on detention of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ incurred at the Kenya Ports Authority as a consequence of these proceedings against the owners of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ and costs of the proceedings be provided for and paid by the Respondent.
3.The grounds upon which the application is based are that on August 18, 2022, the Respondent had the Appellant’s Ship arrested and detained at the port of Mombasa; that on April 14, 2023, this Court found that the arrest was unwarranted and set aside the said arrest as well as the arrest warrants and struck out the Respondent’s claim with cost to the Appellant both in this Court and in the High Court; that the Kenya Ports Authority is demanding for costs occasioned by the detention of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ from the Appellant/Applicant: and that this Court did not make an order as to who would be liable for the costs occasioned by the arrest of the vessel.
4.It was averred that the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ has now been detained on account of unpaid costs and the continued detention of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ on account of the Respondent’s acts will occasion the Appellant irreparable harm and loss as its movement in and out of the port of Mombasa will continue to affect its operations and business. The Appellant therefore sought for an order compelling the Respondent to be liable for all the charges payable on account of the arrest of the Motor vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ and that the said order be included as part of the orders issued earlier in the judgement.
5.When this matter was called out for hearing on this Court’s virtual platform on August 16, 2023, Learned Counsel, Mr Kevin Mogeni appeared for the Appellant/Applicant while Mr Ahmed Idris appeared for the Respondent. While Mr Mogeni was ready to proceed, Mr Idris informed us that he had not filed a replying affidavit due to the fact that his instructions had been withdrawn and he had filed an application seeking to cease acting for the Respondent who, upon being informed of the Motion dated 24th July, 2023 instructed him not to take any further action in the matter.
6.We directed that the matter proceeds as the Respondent were aware of the proceedings but failed to instruct counsel to appear for them.
7.Mr Mogeni relied on his written submissions dated July 3, 2023, and cited rule 1 (2) and rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. Reference was also made to Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited  eKLR where the Court found pursuant to Rule 1 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, that it has jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Appellant submitted that the application dated July 20, 2023 seeks to meet the ends of justice, as the Applicant having gotten a valid judgment before this Court is now being condemned to pay detention costs for the vessel, a situation which the Respondent occasioned by the wrongful detention and ought to be obligated to pay.
8.In the Appellant’s view, it satisfied the requirements for the grant of the orders sought and contended that there is indeed a need to bring the issue to finality by dealing with the issues of the wrongly incurred detention costs, and the need to ensure that justice is done by ensuring that the party occasioning the wrongful costs is held liable to pay for the same.
9.We have considered the Motion, the supporting affidavit and submissions filed. In our view, the Application before us is not, strictly speaking, one seeking a review of the judgement. What the Appellant is seeking, is that this Court clarifies who, between the Appellant and the Respondent ought to bear the expenses incurred as a result of the arrest and detention of the Appellant’s ship. In other words, what is being sought is an order resulting from and consequential to the judgement delivered herein.
10.We have no doubt, both on the law and on authorities that this Court has the residual jurisdiction to clarify its orders for the purposes of implementation. Sections 1A and 1B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act provides for the overriding objective of the Act. While interpreting those provisions, this Court in Hunker Trading Company Limited v Elf Oil Kenya Limited Civil Application No Nai. 6 of 2010 held, inter alia, that:
11.Apart from the overriding objective, rule 1(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides that:
13.Accordingly, this Court is clothed with inherent jurisdiction, being a court of justice, to make orders necessary for the ends of justice to be met and to prevent abuse of its process. It is a jurisdiction which is not necessarily conferred by a legal provision but which inheres in a court and may be reserved by a legal provision but not created by legal provisions, which only manifests the existence of such powers. See Ryan Investments Ltd & Another v The United States of America  EA 675.
14.It follows therefore that the inherent jurisdiction as the name suggests is not donated to the Court by any legislation but underlie the very nature of the Court as a seat of justice which the Court ought to draw upon whenever necessary and when all else fails in order to ensure that justice is attained. It must however be distinguished from the power of review.
15.What is being sought in this application is that having found that the Respondent put into motion a process by which the Appellant’s ship was found to have been wrongly arrested and detained, the Respondent ought to bear the consequential loss including the costs and expenses occasioned by that wrongful action. The law is that costs follow the event and such costs not only encompass the costs incurred in defending or prosecuting the suit but also the costs necessarily due and payable, for instance, storage charges payable to those who are legally in custody of the subject matter. They may be costs payable to an auctioneer in whose custody the item in dispute is placed pending the determination of the suit or the costs incurred by an interpleader in securing the item while the rightful owner of the item is being determined. In this case, they are the costs demanded by Kenya Ports Authority which was the legal custodian of the subject ship.
16.The Appellant having succeeded in challenging the actions of the Respondent, it follows that it ought not to be saddled with the resultant costs and it was on that basis that we directed that the costs be borne by the Respondent. It is however true that this Court did not expressly deal with the costs incurred by the Kenya Ports Authority, a third party. We are being asked to clarify that issue so as to effectuate our judgement. The predecessor of this Court, the East African Court of Appeal in Mawji v Arusha General Store  EA 137 while citing Rawal v Mombasa Hardware Ltd  EA 392 expressed itself as follows:
17.That power, as was held in Meshallum Wanguhu v Kamau Kania Civil Appeal No 101 of 1984 1 KAR 780 KLR 51; [1986-1989] EA 593, is a residual jurisdiction, which should only be used, in special circumstances in order to put right that which would otherwise be a clear injustice since the Court has the duty to ensure that its orders are at all times effective. See Nicholas Mahihu v Ndima Tea Factory Ltd & another Civil Application No Nai. 101 of 2009.
18.This Court having found the action of arresting the Appellant’s ship unwarranted, it must exercise it powers of restitution and vacate the orders of arrest as was done in the judgement and where there is an impediment to that restitution, to make necessary consequential orders for the ends of justice to be met. We are satisfied that the restitution cannot be effectually met as long as the clarification of which party ought to bear the costs demanded by Kenya Ports Authority remain un-clarified.
19.We accordingly find the Notice of Motion Application dated July 24, 2023 merited. We allow the same and clarify the judgment delivered on April 14, 2023 and make a further order that apart from the costs of the proceedings as directed in the judgement, the respondent, Jade International Shipping Line DMCC be held liable for all costs, charges and all consequential charges on detention of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’ incurred at the Kenya Ports Authority as a consequence of these proceedings, against the owners of the Motor Vessel ‘Mirembe Judith’.
20.Since these are consequential proceedings, we make no order as to the costs of the instant application.
21.It is so ordered.