Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others [2014] eKLR the judiciously-exercised discretion of the Court, accommodating the special circumstances of the case, while being guided by ends of justice……....” “In instances where there is a vexatious claim brought by the petitioner or the respondents, the Court will determine whether a party is to be disallowed costs, or the burden of paying costs will fall on such a party… The scope for discretion in this regard, it is clear, is more limited than is the case in normal civil procedure. The purpose is to compensate the successful litigant for expenses incurred in prosecuting the case.” [44] We are convinced that the current application was not meritorious, and should not have come before this Court in the first place. It is plainly speculative and as such, misconceived, and is an abuse of the process of the Court. This being an ordinary civil application, we find that we have a broad latitude to exercise our discretion in determining the issue of the costs. [45] We note that, not all the parties were involved in the active canvassing of the application; and we shall restrict our Order as to costs accordingly. F. ORDERS [46] In all the circumstances of this matter, our Orders shall be as follows: a. the application dated 23rd May, 2014 is hereby dismissed. b. the costs of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th appellants and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th respondents shall be borne by the Applicant. c. the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th respondents shall bear their own costs. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 25th day of JULY, 2014. ……………………………………….……. J.B. OJWANG JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT …………………….…………………….. S. C. WANJALA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT I certify that this is a true copy of the original http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 10/11