Bos Shipping (East Africa) Limited v Rehman & another (Environment & Land Case 121 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4918 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa dismissed a challenge to Kshs. 4.1 million in legal costs and lifted a stay of execution.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd defendant met the threshold for stay of execution under Order 22 Rule 22 CPR
The 2nd defendant failed to show substantial loss and did not provide documentary proof of depositing the decretal sum; the stay would lapse upon determination of the applications.
Order 22 Rule 22 CPR governs stay where a decree has been issued and execution is imminent, distinct from Order 42 Rule 6 stay pending appeal. Filing a notice of appeal is presumed sufficient proof an appeal was preferred. The restitution limb was irrelevant as no property was seized; security had been addressed by the 26th June 2024 order requiring deposit of the decretal sum, but no documentary evidence of the deposit was attached.
Whether the taxing officer erred in using Kshs. 200,000,000 as the value of the subject matter for instruction fees
No error of principle. The judgment granted declaratory orders and a mandatory injunction beyond the Kshs. 1,000,000 damages; the value of the subject matter is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and the taxing officer's use of the valuation report was a judicious exercise of discretion unchallenged by contrary evidence.
Relying on Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates, the court held that instruction fees flow from the value of the subject matter determined from pleadings or judgment. The plaintiff's suit included declaratory and injunctive reliefs over prime property in Nyali, so damages of Kshs. 1,000,000 were not the totality of the suit. Courts of equal status had taken differing views on valuation reports; in the absence of a competing valuation from the 2nd defendant, the taxing officer's discretion was properly exercised.
Whether the taxing officer erred in taxing items 18, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47 and 48
The court would not interfere; the taxing officer applied the correct principle, as Kshs. 3,000 per attendance is provided in the ARO.
The court found the contested items were taxed in line with the Advocates Remuneration Order's prescribed amounts and saw no basis for interference, reiterating that a court exercises discretion in references and would generally only correct errors or remit for reassessment where fees are to be re-assessed on different principles.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation of a bill of costs is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter.
- An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate substantial loss.
- A successful litigant defending an application is entitled to costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd defendant's amended chamber summons dated June 25, 2024/reference is dismissed with costs.
- 2.The plaintiff's application dated July 17, 2024 is granted with costs by setting aside/vacating the stay of execution order of June 26, 2024 forthwith.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bos Shipping (East Africa) Limited v Rehman & another (Environment & Land Case 121 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4918 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4918/eng@2025-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.