https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4819

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC NO. 1286 OF 2014** **HEARTLAND HOLDINGS LTD - PLAINTIFF** **VS** **ABRIRAHMAN MUHUMED ABDI - 1ST DEFENDANT** **PETER ELIUD MUTUA MAUNDU - 2ND DEFENDANT** **SAMUEL WATUKA MUHINDI - 3RD DEFENDANT** **AINU SHAMSHI LTD - 4TH DEFENDANT** **AINU SHAMSHI GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD - 5TH DEFENDANT** **THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR, NAIROBI - 6TH DEFENDANT** **RULING** **(In respect of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants Application dated 26/3/26)** 1. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, by their Notice of Motion dated 26/3/26, moved the Court and sought orders that the judgment entered against the Plaintiff in terms of the certificate of costs for the sum of Kshs 4,056,940/-, issued on 9/6/25, and the interest on the taxed costs be awarded from the date of judgment at 14% per annum until payment in full, and that the costs of the application be provided for. 2. The application is premised on the grounds that no objection has been raised in line with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Advocates Act and that the sum remains unpaid despite service of the certificate of costs. 3. The application is further supported by the affidavit of Peter Maundu, the 2nd Defendant herein, sworn on 26/3/26, in which he reiterated the grounds set out above and urged the Court to enter judgement against the Plaintiffs in terms of the certificate of costs issued on 9/6/26, and to award interest on the taxed costs from the date of the certificate of taxation at 14% per annum until payment in full. 4. In opposing the application, the Plaintiff filed grounds of opposition dated 17/4/2026 on the following grounds: 5. That the application is misconceived, incompetent and bad in law. 6. That the application is an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. In his further affidavit, sworn by the 2nd Defendant on 18/6/26, the deponent states that the suit in ELC 1286 of 2014 is independent of the counterclaim. That on 20/2/20214, the Plaintiff withdrew the suit against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the same having been defended for 10 years. On 8/5/26, the Court granted an order for costs in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants following the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit on 20/2/24. A party and party bill of costs was taxed. 8. On 8/5/25, the sum of Kshs 4,056,940/- was awarded by the Deputy Registrar of the Court. They are now seeking judgment on the certificate of costs under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Orders [ARO] and Rule 7 of the ARO to prosecute the application for execution filed on 26/6/25, because the Applicant has refused to pay the taxed sums. The objection raised by the Plaintiff is not only baseless but also untenable in law. In addition, no reference has been filed to challenge the certificate of costs as provided for under the Provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the grounds of opposition are no response to the certificate of costs. In any event, the costs awarded by the Court were not subject to the success of the counterclaim in the suit, seeing that the counterclaim is an independent suit to be heard and determined on merit. 9. On 17/6/26, the Court directed that the application be heard by way of written submissions. Save for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the Plaintiff failed to comply. I have considered the written submissions in this Ruling. **Analysis and determination** 1. Having considered the application, the grounds upon which it is premised, the grounds of opposition, the replying affidavit to the grounds of opposition, and the written submissions, the key issue for determination is whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are entitled to the orders sought. 2. It is the case of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants that upon the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants at costs, the costs were taxed at Kshs 4,056,940/- and a certificate of costs was issued. That no challenge was mounted by the Plaintiff against the taxed costs, and that the grounds of opposition filed by the Plaintiff do not impeach the certificate of costs at all, and that the Court was urged to grant the application. 3. The Plaintiff opposed the application on the grounds that it is misconceived, incompetent and bad in law, and further that it is an abuse of the process of the Court. Interestingly, no affidavit evidence was adduced in support of those grounds at all. 4. Rule 11 of the **Advocates Remuneration Order** makes provision for the procedure an aggrieved party must adopt. It provides: (1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects. (2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection. 1. In the case of Twiga Motor Limited -vs- Hon. Dalmas Otieno Anyango (2015) eKLR, the Court stated that; “The time limits in Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order have been put there for a reason. Failure to adhere to the said time lines would mean that the application would be rendered incompetent in the first instance.” [own emphasis]” 1. Section 51 of the Advocates Remuneration Act provides that: “ Every application for an order for the taxation of an advocate’s bill or for the delivery of such a bill and the delivering up of any deeds, documents and papers by an advocate shall be made in the matter of that advocate.(2)The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs.” 1. In this case, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed their party-and-party bill of costs dated 9/7/2024, which was duly taxed by the Taxing Master. A ruling was rendered on the same on 8/5/25, giving reasons for the taxed costs of Khs 4,056,940/-. Consequently, a certificate of costs was issued on 9/6/26, certifying the taxed costs at Kshs 4,056,940/-. 2. Pursuant to Order 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not file any notice of objection or a reference within 14 days of service of the said reasons, or at all. The Court notes that the Plaintiff has neither sought leave to file a reference out of time. The certificate of taxation before the Court is therefore unchallenged. As it remains unpaid, the Court has no option but to allow it in the absence of any objection. 3. In the end, the Court finds the application merited and it is allowed as follows; 4. judgment be and is hereby entered against the Plaintiff in terms of the certificate of costs for the sum of Kshs 4,056,940/-, issued on 9/6/25, 5. interest on the taxed costs be awarded from the date of judgment at 14% per annum until payment in full, 6. the costs of the application are in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 7. Orders accordingly **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **J. G. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **Delivered Online in the presence of:** 1. Mr. Modi Ojuog H/B for Mr. Modi for the Plaintiff 2. Ms. Koki Mbulu for the 2nd & 3rd Defendants 3. Mr. Odhiambo for the Plaintiff in E096/2024 4. CA – Mr. Amos