Murage (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Chiori) v Land Registrar, Kilifi County & another (Environment and Land Case E046 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2108 (KLR)

the taxation of the bill of costs; that taxation proceedings are distinct from the main suit and are meant only to ascertain costs due and payable to the parties who have been awarded costs; that no prejudice is discernible and that no evidence has been placed before this court of any prejudice that maybe occasioned to the 2nd defendant by the determination of the amount of costs payable; that taxation would aid in the determination of what security should be provided by the 2nd defendant should he seek the later on, and 30 minutes event there bead of costs is not the subject of the intended appeal. The respondent states that the bill of cost was not the subject matter in the trial and the proposed stay cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed an act of preservation of the subject matter of this suit. 4. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions which both sides filed and which I have taken consideration of in this ruling. However, the principal issue is that the application has been brought under Order 42 Rule 6 which rule in this court’s view is reserved for applications for stay of execution of judgment and decree rather than the stay of taxation sought in the application. And the respondent has responded to the application in substance as though it were a stay of execution application, which is not the case, probably ex abundante cautela. In fact, in the experience of this court I have not come across provisions of law providing for stay of taxation. 5. To this court, it is crystal clear that taxation is not tantamount to execution, and it does not automatically lead to execution. It is not execution that is sought to be stayed in the application hence Order 42 Rule 6 does not come into play. Besides as stated by the respondent the bill of costs was not the issue before the trial Court and no order of stay thereof is merited. 6. Having considered the application before me I find that there is no good ground given for the proposed stay of taxation proceedings in this matter. 7. Consequently, the application details 27th November 2026 is here by dismissed with costs to the plaintifi for want of merit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI ON THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. MWANGI NJOROGE, JUDGE, ELC, MALINDI. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2108/eng@2026-04-14 2

page 2 of 2