Okuro & 7 others v Onudi (Petition 5 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kisumu dismissed an attempt to revive attachment warrants, confirming only the Court of Appeal can issue warrants for its own taxed costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ruling of 29th May 2024 contained an error apparent on the record justifying review
The court held there was no error apparent on the record; the ruling had correctly set aside the warrants because the execution sought related to costs awarded by the Court of Appeal
The Applicants argued the court had relied on costs taxed on 30th October 2018, unrelated to the warrants, which concerned costs in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018 per certificate of taxation dated 23rd February 2024 for Kshs 424,410/-. The court reasoned that where costs were awarded by the Court of Appeal, execution through warrants must issue from that court, and the Applicant's own affidavit confirmed this court cannot overturn a Court of Appeal decision. No sufficient basis for review was demonstrated.
Which court has authority to issue warrants of attachment for costs awarded and taxed by the Court of Appeal
The court that awarded the costs - the Court of Appeal - must issue the warrants, not the High Court in the subordinate matter
The court noted that the Applicants' application for review was premised on a certificate of taxation dated 23rd February 2024 amounting to Kshs 424,410/- issued by the Court of Appeal in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018. Given that those costs were awarded by the Court of Appeal, any warrants of attachment to execute them must be issued by that court. This court therefore had no basis to reinstate warrants it had vacated, and if the Court of Appeal had determined the costs issue, that issue belongs before the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Warrants of attachment in respect of costs taxed under a certificate of taxation issued by the Court of Appeal must be issued by the court that awarded the costs, not the High Court in the underlying suit
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Petitioner dated 24th June 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okuro & 7 others v Onudi (Petition 5 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (application dated 24th June 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2842/eng@2024-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.