[2024] KEELC 14087 (KLR)
The court held that the proper procedure for challenging a ruling on a Bill of costs is by filing a Reference, not by way of appeal. The judge found that the appellants, instead of appealing the Magistrate's decision on the Bill of costs, ought to have filed a Reference as provided for under the Advocates...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 14087 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ebisiba Nyaboke Jairo; Appellant: The County Land Surveyor-Nyamira; Appellant: The Land Registrar-Nyamira; Respondent: Justus Ongera Orina
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- JM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Costs Taxation, Bill of Costs, Boundary Disputes, Execution of Decree
- 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
Ebisiba Nyaboke Jairo
Appellant
The County Land Surveyor-Nyamira
Appellant
The Land Registrar-Nyamira
Appellant
Justus Ongera Orina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in law and fact by relying on extraneous issues regarding the filing of a fresh Bill of costs without a specific order.
- 2 Whether the Magistrate erred by closing the file before satisfaction of the certificate of costs.
- 3 Whether the Magistrate failed to consider that the certificate of costs had not been reviewed nor appealed against.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the proper procedure for challenging a ruling on a Bill of costs is by filing a Reference, not by way of appeal. The judge found that the appellants, instead of appealing the Magistrate's decision on the Bill of costs, ought to have filed a Reference as provided for under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The court emphasized that the certificate of costs is conclusive unless set aside or varied through the correct procedural channel. Consequently, the appeal was found to be procedurally improper and without merit, as the appellants failed to utilize the appropriate mechanism for contesting the taxation of costs. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The ruling of the Senior Resident Magistrate is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Jairo & 2 others v Orina (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 14087 (KLR) (11 December 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 14087 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2024
JM Kamau, J
December 11, 2024
Between
Ebisiba Nyaboke Jairo
1st Appellant
The County Land Surveyor-Nyamira
2nd Appellant
The Land Registrar-Nyamira
3rd Appellant
and
Justus Ongera Orina
Respondent
(Being an Appeal from the Ruling/Decision of the Principal Magistrate Court at Keroka by the Senior Resident Magistrate Honourable COLLINS OMBIJA delivered on the 22nd day of December 2023 in the Principal Magistrate in the Principal Magistrate’s Court ELC No.E007 of 2020. )
Judgment
1. In the Principal Magistrate’s Case Keroka Civil Suit No.MCELC E007 of 2020, dated 4/12/2020 and filed in Court the same day the Respondent herein sought for Judgment against the Appellants herein for:-a.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants (Appellants herein) from entering onto, cultivating, tilling, erecting of any structures, planting crops cutting down of trees or crops or in any other manner interfering or dealing with land parcel number MWONGORI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/50. b.Costs of the suit.c.Any other relief the Court would deem fit to grant.
2. He grounded his suit on his being the registered owner of L.R NO.MWONGORI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/50 measuring 1. 7 Hectares or thereabout against a portion of which the Appellants were laying a claim thereby preventing the Respondent from free and unfettered use of the land and occupation of the said land. All this in spite of several Demands and the Appellants vide their joint Defence dated 28/12/2020 and filed in Court the same day, averring that the 1st Appellant is the registered owner of the bordering land parcel number L.R MWONGORI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1206 and that none of them had encroached onto the Respondent’s parcel number MWONGORI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/50 but that it was him who had encroached onto the 1st Appellant’s L.R. NO. MWONGORI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1206. They argued that after deliberations before the area Deputy County Commissioner it emerged the issue was a boundary dispute and the said Deputy County Commissioner advised the parties to refer the dispute to the County Land Registrar to fix the same. Accordingly, all the averments in the Plaint save the description of the parties were all denied. An Application for execution is shown on page 19 of the Record of Appeal. The same was filed in Court on 30/3/2022 and a Decree and a Notice to show Cause why execution should not issue. Then there is an Application under certificate of urgency dated 22/5/2023 by the Appellants seeking that the Court be pleased to review and vary the order made on 7/6/2022 and for extension of the warrant of arrest issued by the Court against the Respondent herein. A Bill of costs was filed and taxed. The Appellants objected to the instruction fee of Kshs. 41,000/= and Item No. 14 of the Bill of costs. The said Application was dismissed on 20/12/2023. As a correspondence thereof, the Appellants filed this Appeal and asked for orders that:a.The Appeal be allowed.b.The Ruling of the Senior Resident Magistrate be set aside and that a different Court do asses the costs.
3. The Grounds upon which the Appeal dated 2/2/2024 are that: 1. The Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact in relying on extraneous issues visa vis filing a fresh Bill of costs without a specific order and therefore arrived at a wrong conclusion.
2. The Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by closing the file before satisfaction of the certificate of costs issued by the very court.
3. The Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the certificate of costs issued by the very Court had not been reviewed nor appealed against.
4. The Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider and evaluate the facts deponed in the Supporting Affidavit which were legally uncontroversial and therefore arrived at a wrong conclusion.
4. I have gone through the pleadings herein and the entire proceedings and I find that the right thing to do was to file a Reference from the Ruling on the Bill of costs but not appeal.
JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024. MUGO KAMAUJUDGEIn the Presence of: -Court Assistant: BrendaApplicant’s Counsel: Mr. OgariRespondent’ s Counsel: N/A