Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2024] KEELC 3846 (KLR)

Intercountries Importers & Exporters Limited v Total Security Limited & 7 others (Environment and Land Appeal 10 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 3846 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 May 2024
3,177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court paused collection of taxed legal costs of about KShs. 1 million pending appeal, but only after the applicant deposited KShs. 1 million as security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M.D. Mwangi J, delivered virtually at Nairobi on 14th May 2024, determined the Applicant's application dated 27th November 2023 seeking (a) a stay of execution of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents' Certificates of Costs of Kshs. 481,020/= and Kshs. 562,344/= pending the hearing and determination of Court of Appeal Civil Case No. E216 of 2021, and (b) review of the Respondents' Bills of Costs. The Respondents opposed, arguing the Applicant had not demonstrated substantial loss or offered security, and that review of a taxed Bill of Costs has no legal basis. The court framed two issues: whether stay should issue and whether it could review the Bills of Costs. On the first, it applied the three conditions in Order 42 Rule 6 - substantial loss, absence of undue delay, and security. It found the application filed about three weeks after the ruling of 27th October 2023 was brought without undue delay, that no prejudice would befall the Respondents since their costs would survive a dismissed appeal, and that security should be furnished. It granted a conditional stay requiring the Appellant to deposit Kshs. 1,000,000/= in a joint interest-earning account within thirty days, failing which the Respondents may execute. On the second issue, relying on Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Donholm Rahisi Stores, the court held that taxation is a special jurisdiction of the taxing officer and challenges must proceed by reference; the 'review' prayer was unknown in law and was dismissed. Costs were in the cause. The application was thus partially allowed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of execution of taxed costs pending appeal

Holding

Stay granted conditionally on deposit of Kshs. 1,000,000/= as security.

Reasoning

The court balanced the Applicant's right of appeal against the Respondents' right to enjoy the fruits of judgment. It found no prejudice to the Respondents since they would retain their costs if the appeal fails; filing within about three weeks of the ruling was not undue delay; and the court adopted a conditional security to guarantee due performance of the decree should the appeal fail.

p. 6
02

Court's mandate to review a Bill of Costs

Holding

Prayer for review of the Bills of Costs dismissed; taxation is a special jurisdiction of the taxing officer and challenges lie only by way of a reference under Rule 11.

Reasoning

The court held that taxation of costs is a special jurisdiction reserved to the taxing officer under the Advocates Remuneration Order, and an aggrieved party must file a reference under Rule 11. The Applicant's prayer for 'review' of the Bills of Costs was not a reference, was unresponsive to the Respondents' submissions, and was unknown in law.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and furnishing of security.
  • An order of stay of execution may properly be granted conditional on the applicant depositing security reflecting the taxed costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of stay of execution granted staying execution of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents' Certificates of Costs of Kshs. 481,020/= and Kshs. 562,344/= pending the hearing and determination of Court of Appeal Civil Case No. E216 of 2021, on condition that the Appellant/Applicant deposits Kshs. 1,000,000/= in an interest earning account in the joint names of its Advocates and the Advocates for the Respondents within thirty (30) days of the ruling; in default the Respondents may execute against the Appellant.
  2. 2.The prayer for review of the Bills of Costs is dismissed.
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 48, 50, 25

Cases cited (9)

  • Edward Kamau & Another v Hannah Mukui Gichuki & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Tanui Robert & Another v Jessica Adikinyi Afwande
    [2021] eKLR
  • Vishram Ravjiltalai v Thornton & Turnip
    (Civil Application No. Nai 15 of 1990 [1990] KLR 365)
  • Canvass Manufacturers Ltd v Stephen Reuben Karunditu
    Civil Application No.158 of 1994, [1994] KLR 4853
  • Mukuma v Abuoga
    [1988] KLR 645
  • Aron C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia t/a Rairundalia & Co. Advocates & 4 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mwaura Karuga t/a Limit Enterprises v Kenya Bus Services Ltd & 4 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & Another v Africa Merchant Assurance Company Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Donholm Rahisi Stores (firm) v East African Portland Cement Ltd
    [2005] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Intercountries Importers & Exporters Limited v Total Security Limited & 7 others (Environment and Land Appeal 10 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 3846 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3846/eng@2024-05-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.