Momposhi (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Simintei Momposhi - Deceased) v Ronko & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8639 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out an entire land appeal because the litigant used the wrong procedure to challenge a magistrate's award of legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection premised on Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order was merited
The Preliminary Objection was not upheld because the impugned decision was an assessment of costs by a magistrate in a subordinate court, not a taxation by a taxing officer; Rule 11 and a 'Reference' did not apply
The court distinguished assessment from taxation: subordinate court costs are assessed by a magistrate under Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, whereas High Court costs are taxed by a taxing officer under Schedule 6. A magistrate acts as a judicial officer, not a taxing officer, so a challenge to assessment is not a Reference under Rule 11. The proper channel is a Miscellaneous Application invoking the superior court's supervisory or inherent powers.
Whether the Appellant invoked the correct procedure
The Appellant invoked the wrong procedure by filing an Appeal; the Appeal is fatally defective and incompetent and was struck out
Although the Preliminary Objection cited the wrong rule, the court found independently that a challenge to a magistrate's assessment of costs must be lodged as a Miscellaneous Civil Application to the supervising superior court, not a formal appeal. The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal instead, rendering the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Legal principles established
#- A challenge to a magistrate's assessment of costs in a subordinate court does not lie under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order as a Reference, but through the superior court's supervisory/inherent powers under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, by way of Miscellaneous Civil Application
Court orders
#- 1.The 3rd Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 23rd June 2025 is not upheld
- 2.The Appeal is struck out entirely with costs to the 3rd Respondent
- 3.The status quo order issued earlier on 24th June 2025 is vacated
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Narok MCELC E036 of 2024)
- Narok MCELC E036 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate court assessment of costs; Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act invoked as the proper avenue
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Momposhi (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Simintei Momposhi - Deceased) v Ronko & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8639 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Narok MCELC E036 of 2024 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8639/eng@2025-12-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.