Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELCA No. E019 of 2023· [2026] KEELC 4318 (KLR)

Nyikaland International Technologies Group Ltd & another v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4318 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 July 2026
869 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court corrected a taxing officer's mistake, reviving a costs bill for proper taxation instead of awarding the money directly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a review ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado. The 1st Respondent/Applicant applied by notice dated 15th May 2025 for review and setting aside of a ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025 by Hon. Jane Kamau, Deputy Registrar, dismissing its Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024. The Bill arose from costs awarded to the Applicant when the Court, on 22nd October 2024, dismissed the Appellants' appeal (ELCA No. E019 of 2023) for want of prosecution after the Appellants failed to file a Record of Appeal or prosecute the appeal. The Appellants did not oppose or attend the taxation. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the Bill on the ground that it related to Chief Magistrate's Court Case No. E021 of 2023 and was outside her jurisdiction. Justice Judy Omange framed a single issue: whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant review. She held that the Bill of Costs derived from the dismissal of the appeal before the Court, not from the lower court proceedings, so the taxing master's finding was a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record. The ruling of 2nd April 2025 was reviewed and set aside. However, the court declined the prayer to allow the Bill as drawn, holding that taxation is in the first instance a function of the Deputy Registrar. The Bill was remitted to another Deputy Registrar for taxation, and costs of the application were awarded to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the Party and Party Bill of Costs for want of jurisdiction was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

Holding

Yes. The Bill of Costs arose from the dismissal of the appeal before the Environment and Land Court, not from the Chief Magistrate's Court proceedings, so the taxing master's finding was erroneous.

Reasoning

The court traced the history: the appeal was dismissed on 22nd October 2024 with costs to the Applicant; a Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 was filed to give effect to that order. The Deputy Registrar wrongly assumed the Bill emanated from the lower court proceedings. The error was self-evident and justified review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1.

p. 5
02

Whether the court could allow the Bill of Costs as drawn

Holding

No. Taxation is in the first instance the function of the Deputy Registrar, and the court cannot assess untaxed costs.

Reasoning

Although the Applicant sought to have the Bill allowed as drawn, the court held that taxation is the statutory mandate of the taxing officer. Since the Bill had not been taxed, the court remitted it to another Deputy Registrar rather than itself quantifying the costs, thereby respecting the division of functions.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an appeal is dismissed with an express order awarding costs, the respondent becomes entitled to have those costs taxed by the taxing officer of that court.
  • Taxation of costs is in the first instance a function of the Deputy Registrar, which the judge cannot usurp by assessing untaxed costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025 dismissing the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 is hereby reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2.The Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 shall be placed before another Deputy Registrar for taxation in accordance with the law.
  3. 3.The costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45, Rule 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyikaland International Technologies Group Ltd & another v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E019 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4318 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA No. E019 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4318/eng@2026-07-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.