https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6916

Mucuha v Munge & another (Civil Suit 286 of 2012) [2026] KEHC 6916 (KLR) (Civ) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6916 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Suit 286 of 2012 JN Mulwa, J May 21, 2026 Between Kamau Mucuha Plaintiff and Charles Munge Defendant and Pavillion Auction Agency Respondent Ruling 1.Charles Munge, the in this matter by his motion dated 9/07/2025 seeks as against the Respondent, Pavillion Auction Agency the following;-a.That, an order be and is hereby issued directing the auctioneer (Pavillion Auction Agency) to refund Kshs. 1,022,420/- to the Defendant, being the difference between the Auctioneer’s taxed costs (Kshs. 87,580/-) and the exorbitant auctioneer’s charged and collected fees of (Kshs. 1,110,000/-)b.That, judgment be entered in favour of the Defendant/applicant against the auctioneer (Pavillion Auction Agency) in the sum of Kshs. 1,022,420/- together with interest thereon at court rates from 2/05/2025 in terms of certificate of Taxation herein.c.That a decree does issue for the sum of Kshs. 1,022,420/= upon entry of judgment.d.Judgment and decree do issue Kshs. 1,022,420/= n favour of the applicant against the respondent. 2.The motion is grounded on the supporting affidavit by the Applicant dated 9/07/2025 and grounds on its face and upon provisions of the Auctioneers (practice) Rules and Sections 1B and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. 3.The motion is unopposed. Upon service of the motion, the Respondent opted not to file a response.The Applicant by its Advocate Mr. Kipkemoi argued the application orally before this court on 12/02/2026. I have considered the substance of the motion, the Auctioneers Rules and the oral highlights of the motion. 4.There is in place the Auctioneer (Respondents) Bill of costs dated 29/08/2024. It was taxed on 2/5/2025 and a certificate of Taxation issued in the sum on Kshs. 87,580/- Ext marked “CM-1”.The certificate of Taxation set aside, has not been set aside, varied or appealed from by way of a Reference as provided at the Advocates Remuneration Order or by any other manner. 5.The court notes that before the Bill of Costs was taxed, the Auctioneer/Respondent purported to execute for its fees against the Applicants assets. To avoid further execution, the Applicant paid Kshs. 1,100,000/= to the Respondent as it had requested as its fees to facilitate release of its Motor vehicle Registration No. KBA 137W that had been attached. 6.Upon taxation, the Taxing Master arrived at the sum of Kshs. 87,850/= as stated at the certificate of taxation, dated 2/05/2025. 7.Logic therefore demands that the difference between the Taxed costs and the amount demanded and paid to the Respondent, by the applicant being 1,022,420 be refunded to the Applicant who despite demand has failed to refund. 8.There being no objection to the prayers sought in the motion under review, and upon considering that the certificate of taxation has not been set aside and that no reference against it has been filed, it is for the interest of justice that the Application dated 9/07/2025 be allowed. 9.Consequently, prayer 2, 3, and 4 of the motion dated 9/07/2025 is granted. Interest of the sum of Kshs. 1,022,420/= shall accrue from 2/06/2025, being one month from date of the certificate of Taxation, at 14% per annum until payment in full. 10.Costs of the Application shall be borne by the Respondent as may be agreed and/or taxed.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST OF MAY 2026.……………………….JANET MULWA.JUDGE