Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNakuru E&LRC Appeal (Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025, under Rule 55[4] and [5] of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997)· [2025] KEELRC 1629 (KLR)

Victonell Academy Limited v Kariuki t/a Direct 'O’ Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1629 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court? — per record 'Nakuru E&LRC Appeal' (Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru)
30 May 2025
1,230 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cut an auctioneer's taxed costs but confirmed debtors cannot dodge liability by re-arguing it during a costs appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Auctioneer's Bill of Costs against the Appellant was taxed at Kshs. 76,349 on 3rd April 2025. The Appellant, Victonell Academy Limited, appealed via Chamber Summons under Rule 55para 4 and para 5 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, contending it was not liable for the costs; that items such as investigation and proclamation fees were not provided for by the governing law; that the Bill should have been halved since the sale was stayed; that the Bill lacked supporting evidence; and that its Replying Affidavit was ignored. The Respondent countered that the Appellant never gave the Taxing Officer 14 days' notice of dissatisfied items, and that the Bill was taxed pursuant to a court order fixing liability. James Rika J held that liability was settled by a prior Ruling of Hon. David Nderitu J in Nakuru E&LRC Appeal No. E023 of 2023, unchallenged at the Court of Appeal, so it could not be re-opened. The Court found no 14-day notice requirement under the Auctioneers Rules — that rule belongs to the Advocates Remuneration Order. However, investigation (Kshs. 5,000) and proclamation (Kshs. 4,032) fees were not provided for under the 4th Schedule Part 2 and were disallowed. The halving prayer failed because paragraph 7 applies to post-sale fees, while the taxed Bill was for work done. The VAT objection was not entertained. The Court varied the taxed award to Kshs. 65,317.90, entered judgment for the Respondent in that sum, made no order on costs, and granted interest at court rate from the date of the Ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability of the judgment debtor for the Auctioneer's costs

Holding

The Appellant is liable, having been so ordered in a Ruling by Hon. David Nderitu J that was not appealed

Reasoning

The Ruling in Nakuru E&LRC Appeal No. E023 of 2023 directed the Appellant to pay the Auctioneer's costs for work done, to be agreed or assessed. The Bill was taxed pursuant to that order. A party aggrieved by that Ruling should have appealed to the Court of Appeal; liability cannot be re-litigated before a Judge of cognate jurisdiction.

p. 2
02

Notice to the Taxing Officer as a condition of appeal/reference

Holding

No such requirement exists under the Auctioneers Rules; the Respondent imported the rule from the Advocates Remuneration Order

Reasoning

The Court distinguished an appeal under Rule 55para 4 and para 5 of the Auctioneers Rules from a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The 14-day notice requirement applies only to advocates' bills, not auctioneers' bills.

p. 2
03

Items not provided for under the 4th Schedule Part 2

Holding

Investigation (Kshs. 5,000) and proclamation fees (Kshs. 4,032) were wrongly allowed and are removed

Reasoning

The 4th Schedule Part 2 makes no provision for investigation or fees on proclamation, so the Taxing Officer erred in allowing those items totalling Kshs. 9,032. The item pleaded as commission was treated as fees on attachment under paragraph 4 and left undisturbed.

p. 3
04

Halving of costs where sale is stayed

Holding

Rejected; paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule applies only to fees the Auctioneer would have been entitled to after sale

Reasoning

The taxed Bill was for work done under a court order, not post-sale entitlement, so the halving provision does not apply.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • There is no requirement under the Auctioneers Rules for a party dissatisfied with taxed items to issue 14 days' notice to the Taxing Officer; that requirement belongs to the Advocates Remuneration Order
  • A party dissatisfied with a Ruling imposing liability for Auctioneer's costs must appeal to the Court of Appeal, not challenge liability before a Judge of cognate jurisdiction
  • Where sale has not taken place, the taxed Bill represents fees for work done, not fees the Auctioneer would have been entitled to after sale, so the halving provision in paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule does not apply

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal filed through the Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025 is partly allowed
  2. 2.The amount allowed on taxation is varied, and costs to the Respondent granted at Kshs. 65,317.90
  3. 3.Judgment is entered in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 65,317.90
  4. 4.No order on the costs
  5. 5.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of the Ruling
On appeal from
Taxing Officer (Auctioneer's Bill of Costs taxed 3rd April 2025)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 55[4] and [5] of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Victonell Academy Limited v Kariuki t/a Direct 'O’ Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru E&LRC Appeal (Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025, under Rule 55[4] and [5] of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1629/eng@2025-05-30

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