Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 23rd June, 2025· [2025] KEELC 7288 (KLR)

Muchene & another v Mwaura (Environment and Land Case 368 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7288 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 October 2025
MCMBOGO C.G.
1,490 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court paused collection of KShs 3.87 million in taxed costs because a party challenging the amount as excessive deserves a real chance to have it reviewed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant/applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 23rd June 2025, brought under Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking stay of execution of a certificate of costs dated 18th June 2025 pending the hearing and determination of a reference to be filed under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The application followed a taxing officer's ruling of 12th June 2025 by Hon. Vincent Kiplagat taxing a party and party bill of costs dated 14th October 2024 at KShs. 3,869,906, which the applicant considered exorbitant. The 2nd plaintiff/respondent opposed, arguing that no reference had been filed, that a blanket stay could not issue, and that the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions, including substantial loss, were not demonstrated. The applicant, in a further affidavit and written submissions, urged that stay is discretionary and that the plaintiffs lacked means to refund the decretal sums if paid out. Adopting the single issue framed by the applicant, whether the application was merited, the court relied on Labh Singh Harman Singh Ltd v Attorney General, which holds that Civil Procedure Act stay provisions apply to references from taxation and that such references would be rendered nugatory if execution were allowed to proceed. Noting that only a notice of objection dated 19th June 2025 was on record and no reference had been filed, the court nonetheless found merit in the application and, invoking the interests of justice and Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act, stayed execution of the certificate of costs pending the reference, on condition that the applicant file and serve her reference within seven days, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution of the certificate of costs should issue pending filing and determination of a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

Stay granted, conditional on filing the reference within seven days, as the applicant was apprehensive of imminent execution which would render the reference nugatory

Reasoning

The court applied the reasoning in Labh Singh Harman Singh Ltd v Attorney General that Civil Procedure Act stay provisions govern references from taxation. Although the applicant had not yet filed a reference, only a notice of objection dated 19th June 2025, the court held it necessary in the interests of justice, invoking Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act, to stay execution to avoid rendering the intended reference an academic exercise.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution of a certificate of taxation pending a reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order may be granted in the interests of justice, guided by the principles applicable to stay pending appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant/applicant is directed to file and serve her reference within seven days from the date of this ruling.
  2. 2.Pending the hearing and determination of the reference, an order of stay of execution of the certificate of costs dated 18th June, 2025 is issued.
  3. 3.Costs in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A, 94
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 46 Rule 6; Order 42 Rule 6
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraphs 11(1), 11(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Century Oil Trading Company Ltd v Kenya Shell Limited
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCMCA No. 1561 of 2007
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & Another v Africa Merchant Assurance co. Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Nduhiu Gitahi v Warugongo
    [1988] KLR 621; 1 KAR 100; [1988-92] 2 KAR 100
  • Labh Singh Harman Singh Ltd v Attorney General & 2 others
    [2016] KEHC 6690 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchene & another v Mwaura (Environment and Land Case 368 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7288 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 23rd June, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7288/eng@2025-10-27

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