Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
Original judgment

Kawa Paradise Limited v Kenia Rafikis Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2022) [2022] KEMC 28 (KLR)

Read the case summaryDownload PDFKenya Law

Kawa Paradise Limited v Kenia Rafikis Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2022) [2022] KEMC 28 (KLR) (21 December 2022) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2022] KEMC 28 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE KWALE LAW COURTS ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E001 OF 2022 ZK KAGENYO, DR DECEMBER 21, 2022 BETWEEN KAWA PARADISE LIMITED ................................................................. APPLICANT AND KENIA RAFIKIS LIMITED ................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Bill of Costs subject of this ruling is dated 19th September 2022 and it was filed on the 20th day of September 2022 by the Respondent in the Miscellaneous Application that was filed in Court on the 14th day of January 2022 by way of a Notice of Motion and for the purposes of this ruling, the then Respondent shall be the Applicant herein and the then Applicant shall be the Respondent herein. 2. The Party and Party Bill of Costs trickled from the Ruling delivered by Hon. Lady Justice A.E. Dena on the 16th day of May 2022 marking the Application as withdrawn and granting costs of the same to the Applicants herein, Kawa Paradise Limited. 3. The Respondent did not file any response to the Applicants Bill of Cost despite being served with the Notice of Taxation and a Hearing Notice. 4. The matter was filed and determined within 2022 and therefore the applicable Advocates Remuneration Order is the Legal Notice No. 35, the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 hereinafter the ARO and more particularly under Schedule 6 for costs of proceedings in the High Court and Courts of Equal Status. The matter was contested. 5. The Applicant herein opposed the application filed in the main suit by the Respondent by way of filing a Preliminary objection herein and this amounts to a denial of liability more so considering that it is on the basis of that Preliminary Objection in addition to the application to withdraw the suit that the suit was terminated with costs. In that premise, this suit was determined in a summary manner without going to full trial. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2022/28/eng@2022-12-21 1

page 1 of 3

6. Schedule 6 Part A, paragraph 1(b) provides that in such circumstances where the suit is determined in a summary manner whatsoever without going to full trial, the instruction fees chargeable shall be 75% of the fees chargeable under item 1(b). 7. Item 1 in the Bill of Costs (Instruction Fees) is drawn at Ksh. 120, 000/= the Applicant stating that it was to defend a matter in which it was to lose its property. 8. The matter having been instituted by way of Notice of Motion shall be taxed under Schedule 6 Paragraph Part A Paragraph 1 (b) if the value is to be determined. The value of the subject matter cannot be discerned from the pleadings, ruling or any settlement by the parties. The Applicant equally does not suggest before this court the acreage, interest in the land or the location of the land to aid this court to assess the impetus of their proposition. 9. This leaves the matter to the discretion granted to the taxing oficer. 10. I have considered the nature of the suit and the court record generally. I notice that the judge did not certify the same as a complex matter. The parties however have high interest in the suit and as such the importance of the suit to the parties cannot be gainsaid. The Respondent had gone to court to get an avenue to challenge a finding which had been made in favour of the Applicant herein. It was about land, a factor of production said to be a highly emotive issue in this country. There is no novel issue that was placed before the court. 11. Accordingly, I opine that instruction fees of Ksh.120,000/= is not unreasonable and will be apt in the circumstances and as provided for under the Advocates Remuneration Order, the instant matter having been resolved summarily will attract 75% of the said amount of Ksh.120,000/=, which is Ksh.90,000/=. Item 1 of the Bill of Costs is therefore taxed at Ksh. 90, 000/= and Ksh. 30, 000/= is taxed ofi. 12. Item 2 drawn at Ksh. 1, 000/= is taxed ofi as the Notice of Appointment was filed on the 28th January 2022. 13. Item 3 is taxed at Ksh. 500/= and Ksh. 500/= is taxed ofi. 14. Item 4 drawn at Ksh. 22, 400/= is taxed ofi for lack of proof of such service. 15. Item 5 drawn at Ksh. 1, 050/= is taxed ofi for lack of proof of such perusal. 16. Item 6 is taxed at Ksh. 472/= and Ksh. 528/= is taxed ofi. 17. Item 7 is taxed at Ksh. 200/= and Ksh. 100/= is taxed ofi. 18. Item 8 is taxed at Ksh. 1, 400/= noting that the service was done via email. Ksh. 21, 000/= is taxed ofi. 19. Item 11 is taxed at Ksh. 100/= and Ksh. 1,150 is taxed ofi for lack of proof of the same. 20. Item 12 is taxed at half day at Ksh. 7, 100/= and Ksh. 7, 900/= is taxed ofi. 21. Item 13 is taxed at Ksh. 400/= and Ksh. 200/= is taxed ofi. 22. Item 14 is taxed at Ksh. 1, 450/= and Ksh. 725/= is taxed ofi. 23. Item 15 is taxed at Ksh. 500/= and Ksh. 500/= is taxed ofi. 24. Item 16 is taxed as drawn at Ksh. 1, 250/=. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2022/28/eng@2022-12-21 2

page 2 of 3

25. Item 17 drawn at Ksh. 22, 400/= is taxed ofi for there are two Afidavits of Service, one for Christopher Kinyanjui Kamau and the other for Clement Ogutu Owende which makes the court find either of the two as ingenuine bearing in mind that no receipts were produced for such travelling. 26. Items 18 and 19 drawn at Ksh. 1, 100/= and 200/= respectively are taxed ofi for the reasons given on item 17 above. 27. Item 20 is taxed at one hour at Ksh. 3, 000/= and Ksh. 4, 100/= is taxed ofi. 28. Item 21 drawn at Ksh. 1, 000/= is taxed ofi for being an unascertainable hanging item. 29. Item 22 is taxed at Ksh. 450/= and Ksh. 225/= is taxed ofi. 30. Item 23 is taxed at Ksh. 2, 650/= and Ksh. 1, 325/= is taxed ofi. 31. Item 24 is taxed at Ksh. 500/= and Ksh. 500/= is taxed ofi. 32. Item 25 is taxed as drawn at Ksh. 1, 000/=. 33. Item 26 drawn at Ksh. 22, 400/= is taxed ofi for lack of evidence of such service. 34. Item 27 is taxed as drawn at Ksh. 7, 100/=. 35. Item 28 is taxed as drawn at Ksh. 7, 100/=. 36. Item 29 drawn at Ksh. 5, 000/= is taxed ofi for being an unascertainable hanging item. 37. In the end, the Bill of Cost dated 19th September 2022 and filed in court on 20th September 2022 is taxed at Ksh.125, 172 /=. A total of Ksh. 145, 403/= is taxed ofi. 38. The Bill of Cost was drawn at Ksh. 270, 575/= of which more than a each party shall bear its own cost of this Bill. has been disallowed and hence RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MS-TEAMS (HTTPS:// BIT.LY/3AM8SK7) AT KWALE ON THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022. KIONGO KAGENYO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT, KWALE In the presence of; Mr. Archibald Kimbada- Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2022/28/eng@2022-12-21 3

page 3 of 3

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.