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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the execution of decrees for taxed costs was fraudulent or collusive.
- 2 Whether the applicant had any legal basis to resist execution absent a stay of execution.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Khaemba v Ingosi & 4 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E036 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11688 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11688 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kitale Miscellaneous Civil Application E036 of 2026 RK Limo, J July 29, 2026 Between Zaddock Makhanu Khaemba Plaintiff and David Ingosi 1st Defendant John Bororio 2nd Defendant Dennis Simiyu Wanyonyi 3rd Defendant Carolyne Nafuna Omondi 4th Defendant Feliz Shikoli Agutu 5th Defendant Ruling 1.Zaddock Makhanu Khaemba, the applicant herein has brought an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 2-3-2026 seeking declaratory orders with respect to the execution of a decree for payment of taxed costs. 2.The applicant had filed a suit against the respondents vide Kitale HCC No.2 of 2020 and Kitale Constitutional Petition No.2 of 2021 and lost both suits. He was then condemned to pay costs in both cases which incidentally involved advocates. The advocates namely John Bororio and David Ingosi separately executed for their taxed costs. The applicant is now serving civil jail lawfully because he did not pay the taxed costs to the decree holders. 3.The claims by the applicant that the two decree holders colluded to harm him is untrue because as observed above the 2 advocates were sued separately and the applicant lost the battle in the two suits separately. He was also condemned to pay costs in the two separate suits. 4.This court finds that there is nothing fraudulent in a litigant executing for his taxed costs which taxed costs were properly assessed or taxed and the same were not challenged. 5.The applicant has told this court that he has challenged the determination of the two suits which is within his rights but there is no stay of execution either in the cited suits or from the Court of Appeal. His claim that the respondents are taking advantage of him because he is a layman is without any basis whatsoever.In the premises this court finds that the application dated 2-3-2026 is not only incompetent and bad in law but it is also without merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondents. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY , 2026.HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMOKITALE HIGH COURTRuling delivered in open courtIn the presence ofZaddock Makhanu Khaemba the applicant in personDavid Ingosi the 1st defendant in personDuke/Chemosop- court assistants