County Government of Kericho v James Finlay (Kenya) Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7420 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court struck out taxed legal costs of about Kshs 1.9 million because the wrong court officer assessed them, so parties must redo the process before the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction to tax costs arising from proceedings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal
- 2.Whether the Court should enlarge time within which the Applicant should file a reference against the Certificate of Costs dated 24th October, 2024 and ruling of the Taxing Officer given on 8th October, 2024
- 3.Whether the Taxing Officer's decision delivered on 8th October, 2024 should be set aside
- 4.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC Deputy Registrar to tax costs arising from Land Acquisition Tribunal proceedings
The Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court had no jurisdiction to tax the bill of costs; the transfer of the ELC file to the Land Acquisition Tribunal was done in error, the ELC had no record of the Tribunal proceedings, and the competent taxing officer is the Deputy Registrar seconded to the Tribunal under Section 133A(3) of the Land Act.
The petition was transferred from the ELC to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, which determined it and awarded costs. The bill of costs was nonetheless taxed by the ELC's Deputy Registrar. Section 133A(3) of the Land Act requires the JSC to second a Deputy Registrar to the Tribunal, whose functions include taxation of bills of costs arising from the Tribunal's determinations. Relying on Ngoje v National Irrigation Authority, the court held the ELC Deputy Registrar acted without jurisdiction.
Whether the court could consider jurisdiction although neither party raised or submitted on it
Yes. Citing Nasra Ibrahim Ibren, the court held a jurisdictional issue is fundamental and can be raised by the court suo motu, and it proceeded to determine it on its own motion.
Neither party submitted on whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to tax costs from Tribunal proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Nasra Ibrahim Ibren, which endorsed the principle that jurisdiction can be raised by the court on its own motion, the court took the issue up itself. It reinforced this with the Lillian S and Samuel Kamau Macharia pronouncements that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and that a court without jurisdiction must down tools.
Legal principles established
#- A court may raise and determine the question of its own jurisdiction suo motu even where the parties have not raised it
- The Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to tax bills of costs arising from proceedings before the Land Acquisition Tribunal; taxation of such costs falls to the Deputy Registrar seconded to the Tribunal under Section 133A(3) of the Land Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Officer's decision delivered on 8th October, 2024 is struck out
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to file a reference and setting aside of the Certificate of Costs on the merits
The court found it unnecessary to address these questions after its suo motu finding that the Deputy Registrar of the ELC lacked jurisdiction to tax the bill
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Taking the foregoing into consideration, the Taxing Oficer's decision delivered on 8th October, 2024 is hereby struck out.
Each party shall bear own costs.
It is evident that the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court did not have jurisdiction to taxed the bill of costs dated 29th May, 2024.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step.
It is disappointing to note that a file of the Environment and Land Court was released to the Land Acquisition Tribunal and yet they have distinct jurisdiction which has no convergence save for the Environment and Land Court's appellate jurisdiction. The said transfer was therefore done in error.
Issues in the judgment
#The roles of the parties are used inconsistently and confusingly - the County Government is called 'Respondent/Applicant' and James Finlay 'Applicant/Respondent', and the deponents' contentions are repeatedly marked '(sic)', including the description of the payment of Kshs. 270,000 as instruction fees versus throwaway costs
The judgment records the Taxing Officer as awarding Kshs. 1,881,915 but the submissions refer to Kshs. 1,500,000 as instruction fees, marked '(sic)' in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kericho v James Finlay (Kenya) Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7420 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Ruling in Chamber Summons application dated 27th November, 2024 (Misc. Application No. E014 of 2024 referred to). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7420/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.