[2014] KEHC 4918 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had participated in the taxation process and did not raise any objection regarding the applicable Advocates Remuneration Order at that stage. If dissatisfied, the applicant should have filed a reference to the High Court, not raise the issue at the execution stage. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4918 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julius K. Tuwei; Respondent: Joseph Birech; Respondent: Simon Rotich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 88 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Injunction Pending Hearing and Disposal of Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Execution of Judgments, Taxation of Costs
- 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
Julius K. Tuwei
Applicant
Joseph Birech
Respondent
Simon Rotich
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Injunction Pending Hearing and Disposal of Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining execution against his property pending hearing and disposal of the application.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs was properly taxed under the correct Advocates Remuneration Order.
- 3 Whether the applicant can challenge the taxation at the execution stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had participated in the taxation process and did not raise any objection regarding the applicable Advocates Remuneration Order at that stage. If dissatisfied, the applicant should have filed a reference to the High Court, not raise the issue at the execution stage. The court further held that the applicant failed to meet the established principles for grant of an injunction, as the mere filing of an application to set aside the dismissal order did not entitle him to injunctive relief or stay of execution. The application was also filed more than three months after the proclamation, by which time execution may have been completed. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CIVIL CASE NO. 88 OF 2000
JULIUS K. TUWEI …...................................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOSEPH BIRECH
SIMON ROTICH …..................................................... DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The applicant Julius K. Tuwei brought a notice of motion dated 9/5/2014 in which he seeks an order of injunction against the defendant/Respondents and Igare Auctioneers restraining them from attaching, advertising for sale, disposing and or in any way dealing with the plaintiff's household goods, cows and or any moveable assets proclaimed on 4/2/2014 pending hearing and disposal of the application herein.
The application had been served upon the Advocates for the respondents who neither filed any grounds of opposition nor replying affidavit. The application proceeded ex-parte. The applicantscontends that his properties have been proclaimed for recovery of costs ordered against him as a result of dismissal of his suit against the respondents.
The applicant contends that the costs were taxed based on the Advocate's Remuneration order of 2006 instead of that of 1997. The applicant also contends that he has already filed an application seeking to set aside the order dismissing his claim against the respondent and that that application is set down for hearing on14/7/2014.
I have looked at the supporting affidavit of the applicant as well as the proceedings herein. The suit herein was dismissed on 3/2/2010. This is after notices were given to the parties concern. The respondents filed their bill of costs for taxation on 14/6/2012. The advocates for the parties submitted on the bill on 12/7/2012. A ruling on the same was delivered on 7/2/2013.
The respondents thereafter started the process of execution. Execution was done partially after which the applicant became violent prompting the respondent's Advocate to seek orders for security during execution. It is this execution that the applicant seeks to stop. The issue which arises for determination is whether an injunction or stay orders can be given in the circumstances.
The applicant is seeking an injunction based on the ground that the bill of costs was taxed based on the Advocates Remuneration Order of 2006 instead of that of 1997. It is important to note that during the taxation, the applicant's Advocate was present and took part in the taxation. The issue which is now being raised was never raised then. If the applicant was dissatisfied with the taxation for any grounds, he should have filed a reference to the High Court which will then have addressed his concerns. He cannot raise it at execution stage.
The principles for grant of injunction are well known. I do not have to repeat the same. The applicant has not met any conditions for grant of injunction. The mere fact that he has filed an application seeking to vacate the orders of 3/2/2010 dismissing his suit cannot assist him to get an injunction or orders of stay. I find that the application herein has no merits. The proclamation was made on 4/2/2014. The application was filed on 12/5/2014. This is a period of over 3 months. The execution may as well have been completed. The application is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 4th day of June, 2014.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
COURT: Ruling delivered at 9. 39 a.m. in the absence of applicant's counsel who had notice of the same. Court Clerk – Kassachoon.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
4/6/2014