Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment provided· [2023] KEELRC 1043 (KLR)

Shikuku t/a Eshikhoni Auctioneers & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1043 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 April 2023
1,124 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Challenging an auctioneer's taxed fees in Kenya requires an appeal to a judge within seven days—using a motion instead gets your case thrown out with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by C N Baari J at Kisumu, dated April 27, 2023, determined the Respondent's notice of motion dated February 7, 2023, brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 10 Rule 11(1) and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to review and set aside the proceedings of February 7, 2023 in which the Applicant Auctioneer's Bill of Costs was taxed ex parte at Kshs 146,188, and to reinstate it for assessment inter parties. The Respondent blamed counsel's failure to file a replying affidavit and memorandum of appearance on court system down time, contending that counsel's mistake should not be visited on the client. The Applicant opposed, noting service of the taxation motion on December 8, 2022 and that the allegation of system failure was unproved. The court framed the determinative question as whether the motion was a competent procedure for challenging the taxing officer's decision. Applying Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules, which requires an appeal to a Judge in Chambers filed within 7 days of the decision, and following Ezekiel Kiminza t/a Auto Land Auctioneers v Mistry Valji Naran Mulji, the court held that the prescribed procedure is mandatory and admits no contrary interpretation. The Respondent's motion/reference was therefore incompetent, devoid of merit and an abuse of the court process. The application was dismissed with costs to the Auctioneer.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of a motion/reference to set aside ex parte taxation of an Auctioneers Bill of Costs

Holding

The application was incompetent because Rule 55(4) and (5) of the Auctioneers Rules requires a party dissatisfied with a registrar's decision on an auctioneer's fees to file an appeal by chamber summons within 7 days

Reasoning

The court examined Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules, which expressly provides that an appeal from a decision of a registrar on auctioneers' fees lies to a judge in chambers and must be filed within 7 days. The Respondent instead filed a notice of motion styled as a reference, a procedure unknown to the Rules, following the reasoning in Ezekiel Kiminza. Because the provision is mandatory and unambiguous, the court had no discretion to entertain the motion, which was struck down as incompetent and an abuse of process.

p. 3
02

Interpretation of plain and unambiguous procedural provisions

Holding

Where the terms of a provision are plain and unambiguous, the court has no interpretive wiggle room

Reasoning

Relying on Aprim Consultantz v Parliamentary Service Commission, the court held that clear statutory language admits no contrary interpretation. Rule 55's mandatory terms therefore foreclosed any latitude to treat the Respondent's motion as a proper challenge to the taxation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The procedure for challenging a taxing officer's decision on an Auctioneers Bill of Costs is by appeal to a Judge in Chambers filed within 7 days, and Rule 55 is mandatory
  • A motion or reference filed instead of the prescribed appeal is incompetent and an abuse of process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's notice of motion dated February 7, 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Auctioneer (Applicant)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 Rule 11(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 22
  • Auctioneers RulesRule 55

Cases cited (2)

  • Ezekiel Kiminza t/a Auto Land Auctioneers v Mistry Valji Naran Mulji
    (2017) eKLR
  • Aprim Consultantz vs Parliamentary Service Commission & Another
    Civil Appeal No E039 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 10 Rule 11(1) and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shikuku t/a Eshikhoni Auctioneers & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1043 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1043/eng@2023-04-27

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