Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt· [2025] KEELC 7580 (KLR)

Murwithania & 3 others v M’Ikiara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7580 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 November 2025
BEB M Eboso
170 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ex-tempore ruling by B M Eboso J, delivered at Meru on 3 November 2025, dealing with an unopposed notice of motion dated 18/6/2025 in an appeal in which final disposal orders had already been made by Yano J in a ruling dated 19/12/2024. The taxing officer of the court had taxed the respondents' bill of costs at Kshs 67,170 and a certificate of costs dated 17/6/2025 was issued. By the motion, the respondents sought two orders: first, judgment against the appellants for Kshs 67,170 in terms of the certificate of costs; and secondly, release to them of the Kshs 50,000 deposited in court by the appellants as security. The application was unopposed. The court noted the prior ruling had given final disposal of the appeal. It held that the application should be allowed in terms of prayer 2, thereby directing release of the Kshs 50,000 deposit, but declined to make the order entering judgment, reasoning that enforcement of an award of taxed costs does not require a separate judgment-entry order. The judgment contains no citation of authorities or statutes. Counsel appearing were Ms Abubakar for the appellants and Mr John Muthomi for the respondents, with Tupet as court assistant. No costs order was made in the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a further order entering judgment is necessary to enforce a certificate of taxed costs

Holding

No. The court declined to grant an order entering judgment for Kshs 67,170, holding that the certificate of costs suffices for enforcement, and allowed only the release of the Kshs 50,000 security deposit.

Reasoning

The taxing officer had taxed the respondents' bill of costs at Kshs 67,170 and a certificate of costs issued. The respondents sought entry of judgment and release of the appellants' security deposit. The court noted the application was unopposed and that Yano J's ruling of 19/12/2024 had given final disposal orders in the appeal. It held that a certificate of costs is itself enforceable, so no additional judgment-entry order was needed; it allowed the application in terms of prayer 2 only.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Once costs have been taxed and a certificate of costs issued, enforcement of the award of costs does not require a separate order entering judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 18/6/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 2
  2. 2.Prayer for entry of judgment for Kshs 67,170 not granted as a separate order; the court held that enforcement of the award of costs does not require another order entering judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over an appeal pending before it (costs of the appeal); the judgment does not cite a specific provision.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murwithania & 3 others v M’Ikiara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7580/eng@2025-11-03

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