Hassan Musambayi Mbaruku v Nashon Aseka [2017] KEELC 3754 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kakamega refused to pause taxation of costs, ruling that costing a bill cannot harm a party or wreck a pending Supreme Court petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay of taxation proceedings could be granted pending appeal to the Supreme Court
No; stay of taxation proceedings was refused as taxation determines only the quantum of costs and cannot occasion loss or render the appeal nugatory
The court relied on its earlier ruling of 16th August 2016 dismissing a similar application and on the John Mburu v Consolidated Bank authority holding that taxation is only a quantum-determination process incapable of causing loss or nugatory effect. The court found the application mischievous, misconceived and vexatious, filed only in response to taxation notices, and dismissed it with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Taxation of costs is merely a determination of quantum and cannot occasion loss to the party against whom costs were ordered or render a pending appeal nugatory
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 2nd March 2017 is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Kisumu Civil Appeal 96 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 22 rule 22, Order 42 rule 6, Order 43 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hassan Musambayi Mbaruku v Nashon Aseka [2017] KEELC 3754 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Kakamega HCCC 123 of 1998 (application dated 2nd March 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3754/eng@2017-06-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.