Nabaala v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 64 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 2450 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi confirmed that correcting a drafting error in warrants of sale does not cancel anyone's liability to pay appeal costs.
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 ruling of 20th March 2024 absolved the 2nd defendant from meeting the costs of the appeal
- 2.Whether the warrants of sale of 11/7/2023, as corrected, properly relate to the costs of the appeal
- 3.Whether the application dated 23rd January 2025 has merit
Key legal issues
#Effect of the ruling of 20th March 2024 on liability for costs of the appeal
The ruling did not exempt the 2nd defendant from bearing the costs of the appeal; it only required the warrants to be properly drawn to identify the costs being executed
The court held that the earlier ruling merely addressed a drafting defect: the warrants of sale dated 11/7/2023 wrongly referred to Malindi ELC No. 64 of 2011. The correction was procedural, ensuring the documents identified the costs of the appeal, and did not extinguish or shift the underlying liability of the applicant to bear those costs.
Validity of the corrected warrants of sale and notice to show cause
The Deputy Registrar's ruling of 7th October 2024 confirmed the execution documents were in order as they related to the costs of the appeal, and the court verified this on its own review
The court noted that the Deputy Registrar ruled on 7th October 2024 on the application for execution and the notice to show cause, confirming they were in order since they related to the costs of the appeal. The judge examined the documents personally and agreed with the Deputy Registrar's assessment.
Legal principles established
#- A ruling directing that warrants of sale be properly drawn to identify the costs to be executed does not absolve a party from liability to meet those costs
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd January 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent execution/enforcement jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over costs of an appeal within its own proceedings
Relief refused
#The relief sought in the application dated 23rd January 2025 (not specified in the extract)
The court found the application lacked merit; the Deputy Registrar had confirmed the warrants of sale and notice to show cause were now in order as they related to the costs of the appeal
Costs
Dismissed with no orders as to 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.
There is no doubt that the applicant was to bear the costs of the appeal.
The ruling that this court made on 20th March 2024 can not be construed to have absolved the 2nd defendant from meeting any costs of the appeal.
In the circumstances the application dated 23rd January 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date is printed as 2026, which postdates the application of 23rd January 2025 by over a year; this appears on the face of the judgment as delivered
The case number, the names of the parties and the specific relief sought in the application dated 23rd January 2025 are not stated in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nabaala v Attorney General & others (Environment and Land Case 64 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 2450 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated on face of judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2450/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.