[2019] KEELC 3734 (KLR)
The court held that it could not grant the applicant audience to stay the taxation or strike out the valuation report before the taxing master had made a decision on the objections raised. The proper procedure required the applicant to raise any objections before the taxing master, who is presumed to apply all...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3734 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Sugut; Plaintiff: Edward Chuma; Defendant: Marcella Cheptoo Chuma
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 70 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Taxation and Strike Out Valuation Report
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Striking Out Documents, Valuation Reports, Court Jurisdiction
- 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
David Sugut
Plaintiff
Edward Chuma
Plaintiff
Marcella Cheptoo Chuma
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Taxation and Strike Out Valuation Report
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should stay the taxation of the defendant's bill of costs pending hearing and determination of the matter.
- 2 Whether the valuation report filed by the defendant after determination of the suit should be struck out.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere with the taxing master's process before a decision is made.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it could not grant the applicant audience to stay the taxation or strike out the valuation report before the taxing master had made a decision on the objections raised. The proper procedure required the applicant to raise any objections before the taxing master, who is presumed to apply all relevant principles in taxation. Only after the taxing master has rendered a decision can the court's jurisdiction be invoked by way of reference. Since the applicant had not demonstrated that the objections were raised before the taxing master, the application was found to lack merit and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 17/1/2019 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 70 OF 2012
DAVID SUGUT..................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
EDWARD CHUMA.........................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARCELLA CHEPTOO CHUMA...................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 17th June, 2018 and filed in court on the same date seeking the following orders:-
(1) That this application be certified as urgent and be dispensed with in the 1st instance.
(2) That pending inter partes hearing, the honourable court be pleased to stay taxation of the defendant’s bill of costs dated 4th October, 2017
(3) That pending hearing and determination of this matter the honourable court be pleased to stay taxation of the defendant’s bill of costs dated 4th October, 2017.
(4) That the valuation report dated 21st September, 2017 and filed on 5th October, 2017 be struck out with costs.
(5) That costs be on cause.
2. The grounds on which the said application is made are that the said document has been filed without leave of the honourable court and upon determination of the suit herein; that the said document has been sneaked in purely for purposes of taxation; that the plaintiff shall have no opportunity to rebut the said report unless the orders sought are granted; that it shall be grossly prejudicial to the plaintiff to permit the defendant to file further documents upon determination of this suit; that the defendant’s conduct amount to abuse of court process and that the applicants and other beneficiaries shall suffer irreparable harm unless the order are granted.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 17/1/2018. That affidavit reiterates the same matters set out in the grounds above.
4. The plaintiff filed their submissions on 28/1/2019 and the defendant on 25/2/2019. Having gone through the application and the response thereto as well as the submissions.
5. I am of the view that the objections raised herein have not been shown by affidavit to have been raised before the Taxing Master before for his decision.
6. In any taxation it is supposed that the taxing master will apply all the relevant principles applicable in the taxation in coming to a decision. Before he has done so this court can not grant the applicant audience for that would amount to interfering with the taxing master’s duties even before he is proven to have erred. It is only by way of a reference as provided for in the rules that this court’s jurisdiction can be invoked in regard to the taxing master’s decision on the issues surrounding the taxation. The application before me has no merit.
7. I therefore strike out the application dated 17/1/2019with costs to the respondent.
Dated, signed anddelivered atKitale on this 27th day of March, 2019.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
27/03/2019
Coram:
Before - Hon. Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
N/A for the parties
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
27/03/2019