Republic v National Land Commission & 6 others; Tunoi (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6525 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Eldoret dismissed an attempt to delay and share out a costs bill, confirming each losing party can be made to pay the entire amount.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court can interpret its own judgment as to costs
The court has no jurisdiction to interpret its own judgment; it invoked inherent powers only to check for clarification, and found none
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Cogno Ventures, the court held that once judgment issues the court is functus officio. However, it invoked inherent powers to examine whether the costs order needed clarification, and concluded the order that the 1st Respondent and 1st to 7th Interested Parties pay costs imposed joint and several liability, so no clarification was necessary.
Whether the failure to apportion costs was an error on the face of the record justifying review
No; liability was joint and several, and the decree holder may recover the entire amount from any one of the parties held liable
The court explained joint and several liability: each liable party is individually responsible for the entire obligation but may seek reimbursement from co-debtors. The Proclamation Notices showed amounts not exceeding each party's share, and in any event the Respondent could recover the whole from the Applicants. No error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason for review under Section 80 and Order 45 was established; moreover, the Applicants had appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Whether stay of execution pending Eldoret ELC Case No. E039 of 2021 could issue under Order 22 Rule 25
No; the pending suit must be between the judgment debtor and the decree holder, and the Applicants are not parties to that suit
Kaptukuk Farm Limited, the plaintiff in the pending suit, is a limited company with a separate legal personality from its members; no prayer was made to lift the veil of incorporation. The pending suit also bears no connection to the recovery of costs in this concluded suit. Further, execution was levied within one year of the taxation ruling, so the Order 22 Rule 18 notice requirement did not apply.
Legal principles established
#- A court has no jurisdiction to interpret its own judgment; upon delivery of judgment the court becomes functus officio, save for review as permitted by statute
- Where a court finds several defendants or respondents liable for costs and does not expressly state otherwise, liability is joint and several, entitling the decree holder to recover the full amount from any one of them, with a right of contribution from co-debtors
- A company is a separate legal entity distinct from its members; shareholders cannot claim to be parties to a suit filed by the company absent a lifting of the veil
- Order 22 Rule 18 notice to show cause applies only where execution is sought more than one year after the decree
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 20th June, 2023 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Ex-parte Applicant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 22 and 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 6 others; Tunoi (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6525 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application dated 20th June, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6525/eng@2024-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.