Mathenge & another v Belle Holdings Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court dismissed all four attempts to overturn a taxed costs bill, because the plaintiffs ignored deadlines, skipped taxation, and challenged a ruling that didn't exist as described.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs were served with the bill of costs and notice of taxation
Service was proved by affidavits of service, and the plaintiffs' claim that the email used did not belong to them was disproved by their own letterhead
The defendants annexed affidavits of service sworn by a process server confirming physical service. The plaintiffs disputed the email used for service only through submissions, which the court held cannot tender evidence. Perusal of the plaintiffs' advocates' own letter showed the disputed email address among their contacts, rendering the denial untrue.
Whether extension of time to file a notice of objection was warranted
Extension refused; no notice of objection was filed within fourteen days and no reasonable explanation for delay was given
Having failed to attend taxation despite service, the plaintiffs could not ground an extension application. The multiplicity of applications seeking similar prayers compounded costs and delay. Prosecuting a reference before extension of time was granted was irregular.
Whether the taxation ruling could be faulted
The taxing master properly taxed off Kshs.502,126.56 from the claim of Kshs.1,168,184.96, leaving Kshs.666,058.40; no error disclosed
The taxing master gave reasons for reducing instruction fees on a liquidated claim of Kshs.32,382,525 and taxed off the VAT item; other items were drawn to scale. The ruling was dated 7th and delivered 9th April 2025, not 10th April 2025 as alleged, so the court could not act against a non-existent ruling.
Whether stay of execution pending appeal against the decision of 30th May 2025 should issue
Application failed as no ruling dated or delivered on 30th May 2025 and no Notice of Appeal was on record
Perusal of the record revealed no ruling of 30th May 2025 and no Notice of Appeal in respect of it; therefore the foundational basis for a stay pending intended appeal was not established.
Legal principles established
#- Submissions are an address from the bar and cannot be a medium through which evidential materials are presented to the court; affidavit evidence must be rebutted by further or supplementary affidavit
- A court cannot issue orders against a non-existent ruling or decision
- Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court directs otherwise for good cause
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' chamber summons and three notices of motion are dismissed
- 2.The plaintiffs to bear the defendants' costs in the four applications
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court and section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21); applications under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathenge & another v Belle Holdings Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Mombasa (Chamber Summons dated 23rd May 2025; Notices of Motion dated 23rd May 2025, 29th May 2025 and 3rd June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8605/eng@2025-12-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.