County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited
The bottom line
#Kajiado County lost its bid to pause a Kshs. 154 million costs bill, because filing an appeal alone does not stop court proceedings in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court has jurisdiction to stay taxation of a bill of costs not yet taxed
Yes - prematurity of taxation does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, since taxation is part of the execution process and Order 42 Rule 6 applies.
The Respondent argued the application was premature because the bill was untaxed. The Court held that taxation is connected with enforcement and ascertainment of costs awarded, and that Order 42 Rule 6 may apply to applications to halt taxation, following Musyoka Kimeu and Dickson Sinkeet Mapi. Jurisdiction therefore existed, but the Applicant failed on the merits of the discretion.
Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory
No. The untaxed bill figure is not an ascertained liability; alleged counter-indebtedness of the Respondent is no answer to costs proceedings; no irreversible prejudice was shown.
The Court found the Kshs. 154,495,372.91 figure was merely claimed, not judicially ascertained, so apprehension of loss was speculative. The alleged Kshs. 10.284 billion rates debt does not extinguish or suspend a costs award and cannot constitute security or substantial loss. The Applicant could participate in taxation and challenge any adverse decision through lawful channels.
Whether failure to offer security defeats the application
Yes. Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) requires security, and the Applicant offered none, which weighed against the grant.
The Court noted the statutory requirement that an applicant give such security as the Court may order for due performance of the decree ultimately binding on it. The Applicant neither proposed nor offered security. Citing Vishram Ravji Halai and Africert Limited v Nyaga, the Court held the omission assumes significance where the applicant seeks to restrain the successful party from pursuing its costs.
Effect of the Court of Appeal judgment in Civil Appeal No. 530 of 2019 on the application
The Court declined to determine the effect of that judgment on the pending appeal, refraining from prejudicing appellate consideration.
The Respondent relied on the Court of Appeal judgment nullifying Kajiado County Finance Bills. The Court held it was neither necessary nor appropriate to determine that judgment's effect on the merits of the pending appeal, since the appeal is before the Court of Appeal. It also noted that a pending Supreme Court application does not suspend the appellate judgment absent a stay.
Legal principles established
#- The filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution or proceedings; a stay must be sought and granted under Order 42 Rule 6.
- Taxation of party and party costs forms part of the execution process, so Order 42 Rule 6 may apply to an application to stay taxation even before the bill is taxed.
- A stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy requiring exceptional circumstances; an arguable appeal alone does not entitle an applicant to a stay of proceedings.
- An applicant for stay must offer security under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b); failure to propose or offer security weighs against the grant.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th March 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6(1) & (2) and Order 51 Rules 1 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Land Case No. E089 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5970/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.