Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] SCC 200 (KLR)

Eagle Eye Auctioneers v SMEP Bank Micro Finance Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2026) [2026] SCC 200 (KLR)

High Court
7 July 2026
MAM.E. Aligula
438 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan auctioneer instructed to repossess a vehicle was awarded Ksh 75,464.96 after the High Court scaled down parts of his Ksh 116,064 bill.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance ruling on an unopposed Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2026 brought by Kibet Ronoh, a licensed auctioneer, under Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997. The applicant sought assessment of his bill of costs arising out of instructions to repossess motor vehicle registration number KCL 085Q, issuance of a certificate of costs for adoption as an order or judgment of the court for execution purposes, and costs of the application. In his supporting affidavit he deponed that he received instructions on 19th October 2021, repossessed and proclaimed the vehicle in Kitale on 22nd November 2021, stored it at Eldoret Supermax store, and sought assessment of his bill at Ksh 116,064/-. The respondent, though served by email as evidenced by affidavits of service, did not file a response. The court held that there was no dispute the applicant was instructed and acted accordingly, so his entitlement to a fee was not in doubt; the only question was quantum. Rule 55 was found to empower the court to assess auctioneer's charges where disputed. The court found the bill drawn to scale except for four items, which it revised, and assessed the bill at Ksh 75,464.96/-. It granted 30 days' stay of execution. No costs order appears on the face of the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement of an auctioneer instructed to repossess a motor vehicle to payment of charges

Holding

The applicant was duly instructed and acted on the instructions; his entitlement to a fee is not in doubt; the only question is the quantum, which the court assesses by reference to the scale, revising certain off-scale items.

Reasoning

The court found no dispute that the applicant received a letter of instructions dated 19th October 2021 to repossess vehicle KCL 085Q, with a loan balance of Ksh 522,884.82 to be recovered, and that he repossessed and proclaimed the vehicle. Service of the application upon the respondent by email was evidenced by affidavits of service; the respondent filed no response. The court therefore treated the fee entitlement as established and proceeded under Rule 55 to tax the bill to scale, revising four items and assessing the bill at Ksh 75,464.96/-.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules empowers the court to assess an auctioneer's charges where the same are disputed, and the court may assess a bill even where the application is unopposed but served

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's bill of costs arising out of the execution of letters of instructions to repossess motor vehicle registration number KCL 085Q is assessed
  2. 2.The bill is assessed at Ksh 75,464.96/-, with specified items revised (item c to Ksh 10,000/-, item d to Ksh 5,000/-, item f to Ksh 5,000/-, item h to Ksh 5,000/-)
  3. 3.30 days stay of execution is granted

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Auctioneers RulesRule 55
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eagle Eye Auctioneers v SMEP Bank Micro Finance Ltd (Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2026) [2026] SCC 200 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/200/eng@2026-07-07

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