https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11688

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11688

The application failed because the taxed costs were lawfully assessed, were not challenged, and there was no stay of execution from either the trial court or the Court of Appeal; accordingly, execution by the decree holders was proper and the application was incompetent, bad in law, and without merit.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 11688 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Zaddock Makhanu Khaemba; 1st Defendant/decree Holder: David Ingosi; 2nd Defendant/decree Holder: John Bororio; 3rd Defendant: Dennis Simiyu Wanyonyi; 4th Defendant: Carolyne Nafuna Omondi; 5th Defendant: Feliz Shikoli Agutu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E036 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Judges
["RK Limo"]
Legal Topics
Taxed Costs, Execution of Decree, Stay of Execution, Civil Jail, Challenge to Taxation, Declaratory Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution Law Costs Taxed Costs Execution of Decree Stay of Execution Civil Jail Challenge to Taxation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaddock Makhanu Khaemba

Applicant/plaintiff

David Ingosi

1st Defendant/decree Holder

John Bororio

2nd Defendant/decree Holder

Dennis Simiyu Wanyonyi

3rd Defendant

Carolyne Nafuna Omondi

4th Defendant

Feliz Shikoli Agutu

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Application

  1. 1 Whether the execution of decrees for taxed costs was fraudulent or collusive.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had any legal basis to resist execution absent a stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 2 March 2026 disclosed any merit or competence.

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the taxed costs were lawfully assessed, were not challenged, and there was no stay of execution from either the trial court or the Court of Appeal; accordingly, execution by the decree holders was proper and the application was incompetent, bad in law, and without merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 2 March 2026 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.