Ruth Muthoni Iganjo & Another v Gitonga Mwangi Murithi & Others

1. The 7th Defendant, filed the Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 under sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 2. The principal relief sought is the review, setting aside, discharge and/or variation of the order made by the Taxing Master, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, on 10th July 2025 staying taxation of the 7 th Defendant’s Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023. The 7th Defendant further seeks an order directing the Taxing Master to proceed with taxation and costs of the Application. 3. The 7th Defendant states that the Plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed and judgment entered in its favour on the Counterclaim, with costs awarded both on the Plaintiffs’ claim and the Counterclaim. The Plaintiffs subsequently lodged an appeal and sought stay of execution. 4. The 7th Defendant reiterates that, by the Ruling delivered on 18 th January 2024, the Court granted stay of execution subject to the proceeds from L.R. Nos. 398/7 and 398/8 being deposited into a joint interest-earning account between the Plaintiffs and the 7th Defendant from 1st February 2024 and the Plaintiffs facilitating the opening of the account by availing comprehensive statements of account. 5. It is the 7th Defendant’s case that the conditions were cumulative and that the Plaintiffs failed to comply, particularly by failing to furnish comprehensive statements of account. It consequently contends that the stay lapsed automatically and that the 7th Defendant was at liberty to proceed with taxation of its Bill of Costs. 6. The 7th Defendant states that when the matter came before the Taxing Master on 10th July 2025, the Plaintiffs objected to taxation on the basis that the stay remained in force. The 7th Defendant opposed the objection and maintained that the stay had lapsed. RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 2 of 10

page 2 of 10

7. The Taxing Master nevertheless stayed taxation of the Bill of Costs pending determination of the appeal. The 7th Defendant contends that the Taxing Master thereby misdirected himself by treating the conditional stay as subsisting notwithstanding the alleged non-compliance. 8. The 7th Defendant maintains that the Taxing Master’s order effectively varied or extended the conditional stay granted by the Court, notwithstanding the failure to fulfil its conditions. It therefore seeks review and setting aside of the order and an order permitting taxation to proceed. The 4th Defendant’s Replying Affidavit to the Chamber Summons 9. The 4th Defendant, Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu, swore a Replying Affidavit on 18th May 2026 in support of the Chamber Summons. She reiterated that the judgment delivered on 21st September 2023 dismissed the Plaintiffs’ suit and allowed the 7th Defendant’s Counterclaim with costs. 10. She maintained that the conditional stay granted on 18th January 2024 was subject to the opening of the joint interest-earning account and the furnishing of comprehensive statements of account, and that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with both conditions. 11. She therefore maintained that the stay automatically lapsed and that the order of the Taxing Master dated 10th July 2025 staying taxation did not revive or extend the expired stay of execution. 12. She further contended that the allegations concerning the events of 28 th October 2025 did not alter or excuse the Plaintiffs’ prior non-compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court. 13. The 4th Defendant maintained that the Court was functus officio as regards the merits of the dispute and that, absent a valid stay, the decree holder was RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 3 of 10

page 3 of 10

entitled to proceed with taxation and execution notwithstanding the pending appeal. Plaintiffs’ Submissions 14. The Plaintiffs filed submissions opposing and they characterised the Application as misconceived, premature and an abuse of the process of the Court. They maintained that the conditional stay granted on 18th January 2024 remained in force and reiterated that their advocates forwarded account-opening forms to the 7th Defendant’s advocates on 18th and 29th January 2024, but the 7th Defendant failed, refused or neglected to cooperate. 15. The Plaintiffs further submitted that the alleged eviction of 28 th October 2025, accompanied by vandalism and destruction of their accounting records, frustrated their ability to prepare the comprehensive statements of account required by the stay order. 16. They contended that the 7th Defendant had never obtained an order declaring the stay to have lapsed and urged the Court to determine the contempt allegations before considering the Chamber Summons. 17. On the question whether the 7th Defendant should be denied audience, the Plaintiffs relied on Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 6 Others [2023] KESC 14 (KLR) and A.B & Another v R.B [2016] eKLR, arguing that a party found to be in contempt may, depending on the circumstances, be denied audience until the contempt is purged. 18. They further relied on Wekesa & 2 Others v Munialo [2025] KECA 679 (KLR) and submitted that the 7th Defendant could not frustrate compliance with a Court order and thereafter benefit from the resulting non-compliance. RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 4 of 10

page 4 of 10

19. Reliance was also placed on Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Limited [2015] KECA 365 (KLR) for the principle that a party should not obtain or retain an advantage arising from its own wrongdoing or abuse of the process of the Court. 20. The Plaintiffs further relied on Martin Nyaga Wambora & 4 Others v Speaker of the Senate & 6 Others [2014] KEHC 5604 (KLR) and Kenya Pipeline Company Limited v Glencore Energy (UK) Limited [2015] eKLR, arguing that a party should not be permitted to rely upon an illegal act or wilful disobedience of a Court order to found a claim or obtain an advantage. 21. They therefore urged the Court to find that the Chamber Summons was founded upon the 7th Defendant’s own alleged non-compliance and to dismiss it with costs. 4th Defendant’s Submissions on the Chamber Summons 22. The 4th Defendant, Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu, filed written submissions dated 18th May 2026 in support of the Chamber Summons. She reiterated the averments made in the replying affidavit. 23. She submitted that the conditional stay granted on 18 th January 2024 had lapsed by reason of the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the conditions requiring the deposit of proceeds into a joint interest-earning account and the furnishing of comprehensive statements of account. 24. She maintained that the alleged failure by the 7 th Defendant to execute account-opening forms did not excuse the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the conditions imposed upon them. RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 5 of 10

page 5 of 10

25. On functus officio, the 4th Defendant relied on Iganjo & Another v Muriithi & 6 Others (Environment and Land Case No. 901 of 2014) [2023] KEELC 20015 (KLR) and submitted that, following delivery of judgment on 21st September 2023, the Court was functus officio as regards the merits of the dispute. She contended that the pendency of Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E896 of 2023 did not, by itself, operate as a stay or confer jurisdiction upon the Court to reopen the merits. 26. The 4th Defendant further challenged the Taxing Master’s order of 10 th July 2025 staying taxation of the 7th Defendant’s Bill of Costs. She submitted that, once the stay had lapsed, there was no legal impediment to taxation and that the Taxing Master had no jurisdiction to stay taxation on the basis of a spent stay order. 27. Reliance was placed on Estate of Kibiwott Arap Mwolomet (Deceased) v Maina & Another [2025] KEELC 7168 (KLR) in support of the contention that taxation forms part of the execution process. 28. The 4th Defendant opposed the Plaintiffs’ submission that the 7th Defendant should be denied audience on account of alleged contempt. She relied on Article 50 of the Constitution, Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 6 Others [2023] KESC 14 (KLR) and A.B & Another v R.B [2016] eKLR, maintaining that no finding of contempt had been made and that the mere filing of a contempt application could not justify denial of audience. 29. She further relied on Beijing Industrial Designing & Researching Institute v Lagoon Development Limited [2015] KECA 365 (KLR), Kenya Pipeline Company Limited v Glencore Energy (UK) Limited [2015] eKLR and Martin Nyaga Wambora & 4 Others v Speaker of the Senate & 6 Others [2014] KEHC 5604 (KLR) in submitting that the RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 6 of 10

page 6 of 10

Plaintiffs could not rely on their own alleged non-compliance to prevent the 7th Defendant from enjoying the fruits of its judgment. 30. The 4th Defendant consequently urged the Court to find that the conditional stay granted on 18th January 2024 had lapsed; that the judgment of 21st September 2023 was available for execution; that the Taxing Master’s order of 10th July 2025 ought to be reviewed and set aside; and that the Taxing Master ought to be directed to proceed with taxation of the 7 th Defendant’s Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023, with costs to the Defendants. Analysis and Determination 31. The Chamber Summons seeks review, setting aside, discharge and/or variation of the order of the Taxing Master dated 10th July 2025 staying taxation of its Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023. 32. Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides the mechanism for challenging a decision of a taxing officer and states that the jurisdiction of the Judge at this stage is therefore supervisory and appellate in nature in relation to the taxation proceedings. 33. The 7th Defendant's grievance is not merely with the quantum of taxation. It challenges the Taxing Master's decision to stay taxation of the decree on the premise that the stay of execution granted on 18 th January 2024 remained operative. 34. Having found that the conditional stay lapsed upon non-compliance with its express conditions, there was no basis upon which the Taxing Master could treat that stay as continuing indefinitely. 35. The court agrees with the 7th Defendant and the 4th Defendant that the Taxing Master could not, by the order of 10th July 2025, extend or revive a RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 7 of 10

page 7 of 10

stay of execution granted by a Judge. The order of 10 th July 2025 could not confer upon the Plaintiffs a substantive stay which they had lost by failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the Court. 36. The Plaintiffs relied on Centre for Peace and Democracy v NonGovernmental Organizations Coordination Board [2019] eKLR and Francis Muriuki Muraguri t/a Lusoi Stores & 2 Others v Milling Corporation of Kenya Limited [2018] eKLR for the proposition that taxation forms part of execution proceedings. That proposition does not mean, however, that the taxing officer acquires jurisdiction to grant or extend a stay of execution issued by a Judge. 37. The Plaintiffs also relied on Estate of Kibiwott Arap Mwolomet (Deceased) v Maina & Another [2025] KEELC 7168 (KLR) in relation to taxation and execution. Again, the principle does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the taxing officer beyond that conferred by the Advocates Remuneration Order. 38. In the Courts view, the Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 is merited to the extent that it challenges the Taxing Master's order on the basis that the latter could not revive or extend the conditional stay. 39. The Court finds that the order of 10th July 2025 related to taxation of the Bill of Costs. It did not and could not determine the substantive merits of the Judgment of 21st September 2023. Nor does setting aside that order amount to authorising any unlawful execution. The 7th Defendant remains bound to execute the decree in accordance with the law. 40. The Court thus finds that the Taxing Master had jurisdiction over the taxation proceedings but could not vary, revive or extend the conditional stay granted by a Judge. The order dated 10 th July 2025 could not therefore RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 8 of 10

page 8 of 10

operate to preserve a stay which had already lapsed by operation of the order of 18th January 2024. 41. The Chamber Summons is consequently merited to that limited extent. The order of the Taxing Master dated 10th July 2025 staying taxation of the 7th Defendant's Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023 cannot stand on the basis that the conditional stay of 18th January 2024 remained in force. Final Orders 42.Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: i) The Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 is hereby allowed. ii) The order of the Taxing Master, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, made on 10th July 2025, staying taxation of the 7 th Defendant's Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023, is hereby set aside. iii) The Taxing Master is hereby directed to proceed with the taxation of the 7th Defendant's Bill of Costs dated 22nd November 2023, in accordance with the law and subject to any lawful order subsequently issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. iv) The costs of the Chamber Summons dated 24th July 2025 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs/Respondents and are awarded to the 7 th Defendant/Applicant Delivered, dated and signed via Microsoft Teams this 24th day of September 2026. HON. L. G. KIMANI JUDGE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 9 of 10

page 9 of 10

The Ruling read in the presence ofMuthoni for Plaintiffs/Applicants Thuita for 1st, 2nd, & 7th Defendants Namukuru Holding brief for Khaemba for 3rd and 5th Defendant Bande holding brief for Akedi for 4th Defendant Wawire for 6th Defendant RULING ON Chamber Summons Dated 24th July 2025 10 of 10

page 10 of 10