Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedReference from taxation - Kwale ELC (Miscellaneous Application)· [2026] KEELC 4531 (KLR)

Mulandi t/a Mulandi & Mulandi Company Advocates v Mutisya & another (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4531 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 July 2026
1,933 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court can tax advocates' bills of costs from its own cases, so lawyers need not file them in the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference made by the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court Kwale under Paragraph 12 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, seeking the court's opinion on whether the ELC has jurisdiction to tax an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. The applicant advocate filed a bill of costs dated 20th January 2026 for services rendered to the two Respondents in Kwale ELC Case No. E010 of 2023. Both Respondents filed preliminary objections seeking to have the bill struck out, the 1st Respondent contending that jurisdiction to tax advocate/client bills lies exclusively with the High Court by virtue of Section 2 of the Advocates Act and Paragraph 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which defines 'Court' as the High Court. The applicant relied on Lillian S v Caltex and on ELC and East African authorities to argue that costs arising from ELC proceedings are taxable by the Deputy Registrar of that court. The court (Nderitu LJ) noted that jurisdiction is a pure point of law, then examined Paragraph 10, observing that it predated the 2010 Constitution and the creation of specialised courts with the status of the High Court under Article 162(2). Sections 9 and 11 of the ELC Act provide for a Registrar whose functions include taxation. A literal reading of the Order would produce the absurdity that no costs could be awarded in specialised courts, contrary to Section 13(7) of the ELC Act. Relying on Sala and Mudany Advocates and Kangoli & Company Advocates, the court held that the Deputy Registrar, ELC Kwale has jurisdiction to tax the bill and that the application was properly filed. The objection was rejected and no costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to tax Advocate/Client bills of costs

Holding

Yes - the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to tax such bills relating to matters heard by the ELC.

Reasoning

Paragraph 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Order predates the Constitution 2010, when only the High Court had Registrars. The Constitution created specialised courts with the status of the High Court under Article 162(2), whose Registrars and Deputy Registrars perform equivalent functions, including taxation under Sections 9 and 11 of the ELC Act. A literal reading would produce the absurdity that parties in specialised courts could never be awarded costs, contrary to Section 13(7) of the ELC Act. Authorities support this.

p. 4
02

Nature of a challenge to jurisdiction as a preliminary objection

Holding

A challenge to jurisdiction is a pure point of law properly taken as a preliminary objection.

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit and Lillian S, the court noted consensus that jurisdiction is conferred by Constitution or statute, cannot be conferred by consent, and without it proceedings must stop.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to tax Advocate/Client bills of costs arising from matters heard by that court, notwithstanding the wording of paragraph 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A finding that the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court at Kwale has the requisite jurisdiction to tax the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs filed herein
  2. 2.A finding that the Miscellaneous Application was properly filed before the Environment and Land Court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 12
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 10
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 6
  • Advocates ActSection 2
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(1) and (2)
  • Environment and Land Court Act No 19 of 2011Sections 9, 11, 13(7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR I
  • Omusundi t/a Morgan Omusundi Law Firm Advocates vs Kundu
    (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2022) 2023 KEELC 21356 (KLR) (Ruling)
  • Taparn vs Roitei
    [1968] EA 618
  • Karisa Chengo & 2 Others vs Republic
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Sala and Mudany Advocates v County Government of Kisumu
    [2024] KEHC 11960 (KLR)
  • Kangoli & Company Advocates v Ndwaru
    [2025] KEELC 4377 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 12 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference by the Deputy Registrar for opinion of the High Court/judge in chambers)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mulandi t/a Mulandi & Mulandi Company Advocates v Mutisya & another (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4531 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Reference from taxation - Kwale ELC (Miscellaneous Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4531/eng@2026-07-17

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