Odongo v National Environment Management Authority & another (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed auctioneers cannot seize property using only a taxed costs certificate—a formal signed decree must exist first, or the whole execution is void.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not a decree in Kisumu ELC Petition No. 8/2018 between Benson Ambuti Adega and 2 Others Vs. NEMA and 3 Others was extracted before execution so as to justify the taxation of the auctioneers Bill of Costs
- 2.Whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the Ruling dated 17th April, 2025
- 3.Whether or not the Appeal is merited
- 4.What reliefs ought to issue
- 5.Who bears the costs of the Appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether a decree was extracted before execution by proclamation
No decree in ELC Petition No. 8/2018 was extracted or exhibited before the auctioneer commenced execution by proclamation
Both the application dated 18.12.2023 and the amended application dated 02.04.2024 failed to attach any decree in Petition ELC No. 8 of 2018. The trial Taxing Masters had each found the proclamation was founded on a certificate of costs not converted to a decree. On re-evaluation this court reached the same conclusion, so execution was unprocedural.
Whether grounds for review of the ruling of 17.10.2024 existed
No grounds for review under section 80 and Order 45 were met; there was no new evidence of a decree
The impugned ruling dismissed the application dated 18.10.2024 for failing to meet the threshold for review or setting aside. Since no decree was exhibited in either the original or amended application, there was no new evidence justifying review, and even the amended application would have been dismissed on the same grounds.
Whether execution on a certificate of costs without a decree is valid
The auctioneer proclaimed on a certificate of costs rather than a valid decree, rendering the process a nullity
Relying on Rabo Kimgetich Arap Cheruiyot v Peter Kiprop Rotich, the court held that execution cannot proceed without a formal decree drawn and issued by the court. The auctioneer's proclamation was therefore unprocedural and a nullity, irrespective of which application the trial court had determined.
Legal principles established
#- A formal decree must be on record and extracted before execution can lawfully commence; execution on a certificate of costs not converted to a decree is a nullity
- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence afresh and draw its own conclusions
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Appeal are awarded to the 1st Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court (Deputy Registrar, Kisumu)
- Kisumu ELC Misc. Application No. E001 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a Deputy Registrar's taxation/review ruling, with leave granted on 17.04.2025
Relief refused
#Setting aside, varying and/or reviewing the Ruling of the Deputy Registrar dated 17.04.2025 by allowing the Notice of Motion dated 18.10.2024
No decree had been extracted or exhibited before commencement of execution, and no new evidence justified review under section 80 and Order 45
Costs of the Appeal and prior proceedings to the Appellant
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent
Costs
The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent
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.
The court therefore dismisses the Appeal with costs to the 1st Respondent.
It is my view that a decree duly approved and signed had to be on record for any execution to take place…..since no exexution can take paced without a formal decree having been drawn and issued by the court…
the auctioneer proclaimed based on a certificate of costs as opposed to a valid decree having been entered after the certificate of costs, hence he proclaimed unprocedurally and the process was a nullity
This court finds that the application for review was not merited, as the grounds for Review under section 80 and Order 45 were not met there was no new evidence of the decree in any event.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 29th June 2026, an apparently future/erroneous date
The same authority is spelled inconsistently within the judgment
Typographical errors in the quoted authority extract
Inconsistent reference to the underlying case number as 'Petition ELC No. 8/2024' where the correct petition is No. 8 of 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odongo v National Environment Management Authority & another (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kisumu ELC Appeal (Misc. Application No. E001 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4132/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.