Yusuf O. Chituyi v Silvanus Lukoko Were [2022] KEELC 2014 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a bid to stop auction of goods over unpaid taxed costs, partly because the auctioneer was never served or heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether execution was premature for want of a decree and certificate of costs
The objection fails: the ruling date was taken in the presence of both counsel, and the applicant in any event accepted the costs and had agreed on payment terms
The court noted from the record that the date of the ruling on the bill of costs was scheduled in the presence of counsel for both parties on 4th February 2021. The applicant therefore could not complain about the certificate of costs. Further, the applicant admitted having no problem with the costs awarded and had agreed with the plaintiff on settlement, showing the proclamation was not premature since the costs remained unpaid when the auctioneers acted.
Whether orders could issue against the auctioneer without service and hearing
No; failure to serve the auctioneer was fatal to the application
The plaintiff raised the fact that the auctioneer was neither served nor joined. The court held that the right to a hearing is central to the justice process, and it was incumbent on the applicant, who moved the court, to ensure all persons against whom orders were sought were served. The application was dismissed on this basis.
Legal principles established
#- A party who seeks orders against a person, such as an auctioneer, must serve that person and give them an opportunity to be heard before the court makes orders affecting them
- Where the date of a ruling on a bill of costs was scheduled in the presence of counsel, the applicant cannot later complain about non-issue of the certificate of costs
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 14th April 2021 dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original first-instance jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over concluded suit and incidental applications; no express provision invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yusuf O. Chituyi v Silvanus Lukoko Were [2022] KEELC 2014 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2014/eng@2022-01-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.