Kiptugen v Commissioner of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 787 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 8277 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that costs awarded in a judgment carry no interest unless the judge expressly orders interest, and co-defendants cannot force an equal split of the bill.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether taxed costs attract interest absent an express order
No interest was awarded; costs awarded without an express interest order do not carry interest under section 27(2)
The judgment of A. O. Ombwayo J. awarded costs but made no order for interest. Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act permits interest on costs only up to 14% per annum when the court expressly grants it. Since the taxing officer and the judgment made no interest award, the applicant cannot be compelled to pay interest, and the prayer that no interest was awarded succeeded.
Whether the taxed costs should be apportioned among the 7 defendants
No; liability is joint and several and apportionment would amount to a review of the judgment
The certificate of costs flowed from a judgment ordering the defendants to pay costs. Relying on Black's Law Dictionary and Hellen Njenga v Wachira Murage, where a court orders costs without specifying the nature of liability, the default is joint and several liability, entitling the plaintiff to pursue any one defendant, with reimbursement rights against co-defendants. Apportionment would effectively review the judgment.
Whether the 7th Defendant should pay by instalments
No; the applicant failed to show sufficient cause
Order 21 Rule 12 gives a wide but judicial discretion requiring sufficient cause. Applying Botanic Kenya Ltd v Ensign Food (K) Ltd and Freight Forwarders Ltd v Elsek (K) Ltd, the applicant had to show inability to pay in a lump sum, capacity to pay reasonable instalments and utmost good faith. He gave no reasons, no instalment proposal and no evidence of financial position, so the discretion could not be exercised in his favour.
Legal principles established
#- Costs awarded by a court carry no interest unless the court expressly orders interest on costs under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
- Where a court orders defendants to pay costs without specifying whether liability is joint, several or joint and several, the default rule is that costs are joint and several
- An application for payment by instalments requires sufficient cause, demonstrated bona fides and evidence of the debtor's financial position
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th July, 2025 is allowed only to the extent that the costs awarded did not carry interest
- 2.Prayers (5) and (6) of the application are dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear his/its own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Order 21 Rule 12 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiptugen v Commissioner of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 787 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 8277 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Matter, Eldoret (judgment in suit in which judgment was delivered on 27th January, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8277/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.