[2019] KEELC 3038 (KLR)
The court held that the application for entry of judgment was unnecessary because, under Rule 108(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the certificate of taxation issued by the Court of Appeal is already deemed to be a decree for purposes of execution. Therefore, the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3038 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beatrice Okoth; Respondent: Francis Pius Omweri Nyaberi; Respondent: Rebecca Nyaboke Omweri t/a Topland Motors and General Agencies
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 84 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction of Court, Execution of Decrees
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beatrice Okoth
Applicant
Francis Pius Omweri Nyaberi
Respondent
Rebecca Nyaboke Omweri t/a Topland Motors and General Agencies
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Entry of Judgment on Taxed Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment for taxed costs arising from a Court of Appeal matter.
- 2 Whether the application for entry of judgment on taxed costs is proper where the Court of Appeal Rules deem the certificate of taxation as a decree.
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for entry of judgment was unnecessary because, under Rule 108(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the certificate of taxation issued by the Court of Appeal is already deemed to be a decree for purposes of execution. Therefore, the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to enter judgment on taxed costs arising from a Court of Appeal matter, unless it concerns an Advocate/Client bill of costs, which was not the case here. The filing of the application was thus an abuse of the court process and warranted dismissal with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The applicant's application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MILIMANI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2018
BEATRICE OKOTH............................................APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
FRANCIS PIUS OMWERI NYABERI
REBECCA NYABOKE OMWERI
T/A TOPLAND MOTORS
AND GENERAL AGENCIES.......................RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 24th May, 2018 in which she sought entry of Judgment for the sum of Kshs.34,650/= being taxed costs arising out of Nairobi Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. NAI 242 of 2013 (UR 20/2013). The Respondents herein had filed an application before the Court of Appeal seeking extension of time to file and serve a record of Appeal out of time. That application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
2. The Applicant who was the Respondent in the Court of Appeal filed a bill of costs which was taxed and a certificate issued accordingly. The Applicant has now moved to this Court seeking to have the taxed costs entered as a judgment.
3. The Respondents have opposed the Applicant’s application based on a Replying Affidavit sworn on 13th June, 2018. The Respondents contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment in respect of a matter arising out of the Court of Appeal; that the application is an abuse of the process of the Court and that the Applicant cannot seek costs from them when she has not paid them costs arising from Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Civil Application No. 36 of 2018.
4. I have considered the Applicant’s application as well as the opposition to the same by the Respondents. What was before the Court of Appeal was a party/party bill of costs. It was not an Advocate/Client bill of costs. Under Rule 108(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules the decision of the Court directing taxation and the certificate of the taxing officer shall for purposes of execution be deemed to be a decree. The filing of this application was therefore unnecessary. If it was an Advocate/Client bill of costs then by virtue of Rule 111 (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Application for entry of judgment would have arisen.
I therefore find that the Applicant’s application is an abuse of the process of the Court. I dismiss the same with costs to the Respondents.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 16th day of May, 2019.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE