Vincent Narisia Krop & 3 others v Martin Semero Limakou & 12 others [2021] KEELC 348 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed you cannot be punished for missing a payment deadline when the amount due was never properly finalised.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants fulfilled the conditions of the order of 19/11/2020 for payment of taxed costs within 45 days
They could not have complied because the costs were not ascertained: the taxing master had not given reasons for the taxation of the objected items, so the 45 days had not started to run and execution was premature.
Under paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, an objecting party must notify the taxing officer within 14 days, who must then furnish reasons before a reference can be filed. Since both parties agreed the reasons were never given, the sum payable remained unascertained. The delay was not the applicants' making, so execution for non-compliance was premature and the conditional stay was still in place.
Whether the order of 19/11/2020 should be reviewed or varied
No ground for review was established; the applicants failed to prove discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason, and misconstruing the order is not sufficient reason.
Order 45 Rule 1 sets out three grounds plus absence of unreasonable delay, which must all be proved. The judge granting the earlier order had contemplated the taxation process by giving the alternatives of taxation or consent. The fact that one party misconstrued the order does not amount to sufficient reason for review. Review must be strictly confined to the statutory grounds and is not a substitute for appeal.
Whether the court was functus officio and whether it could determine the propriety of service of the appeal
The court is not functus officio in post-judgment execution matters, but it declined to determine the correctness of service of the appeal, that issue being within the preserve of the Court of Appeal under Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010.
Execution is integral to the judgment, so the court retains jurisdiction over post-judgment applications, including the respondents' own application of 13/7/2021. However, determining whether the email address used for service was correct would decide the competency of the appeal, a matter reserved for the Court of Appeal. The applicants showed they filed and served the appeal; the respondents' eight-month delay in moving for execution also undermined their claim.
Legal principles established
#- Taxation of a bill of costs is a process, not an event; costs are not ripe for execution until the 14-day objection window lapses, reasons for taxation are given, and any reference is determined.
- Once a party notifies the taxing master of an objection and requests reasons, the costs remain disputed and unascertained, and time for payment cannot be said to have begun running.
- A trial court is not functus officio when dealing with post-judgment execution of its own decree.
- An application for review must satisfy the four conditions of Order 45 Rule 1, including being made without unreasonable delay, and review is not a substitute for appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 4/10/2021 was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.
- 2.The Court declined to make a finding on whether or not service of the appeal was proper, holding that issue to be for the Court of Appeal.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rules (1), 50 Rule (6) and 51 Rule (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 19(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act (2011)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR)14 May 2026
- Reuben v Ngiroo & another (Environment & Land Case 75 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 63 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 63 (KLR)22 Jan 2024applied
- Big Tree Farm Limited v Rono & 25 others (Environment & Land Case 104 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 674 (KLR)[2023] KEELC 674 (KLR)9 Feb 2023applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Narisia Krop & 3 others v Martin Semero Limakou & 12 others [2021] KEELC 348 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/348/eng@2021-12-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.