[2025] KEELC 4500 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing master had properly taxed the bill of costs following the court's earlier order awarding the plaintiffs costs for the application dated June 18, 2018. The respondents had actively participated in the taxation process and had the opportunity to contest the bill. The court held that its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 4500 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nardielo Maurizio; Plaintiff: Maurizio Capordarca; Plaintiff: Testa Giancarlo; Plaintiff: Fredriga Giancarlo; Defendant: SBM Bank; Defendant: Tropicana Hotels Limited; Defendant: Keysian Auctioneers
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 143 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Convert Taxed Costs Into Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- EK Makori
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Conversion of Taxed Bill to Judgment, Party and Party 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
Nardielo Maurizio
Plaintiff
Maurizio Capordarca
Plaintiff
Testa Giancarlo
Plaintiff
Fredriga Giancarlo
Plaintiff
SBM Bank
Defendant
Tropicana Hotels Limited
Defendant
Keysian Auctioneers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Convert Taxed Costs Into Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxed bill of costs should be converted into a judgment of the court.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs from the second defendant despite the consent order on costs.
- 3 Whether the taxation by the taxing master was proper in light of the parties' relationship and prior orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing master had properly taxed the bill of costs following the court's earlier order awarding the plaintiffs costs for the application dated June 18, 2018. The respondents had actively participated in the taxation process and had the opportunity to contest the bill. The court held that its role was not to review the merits of the taxation but to determine whether the taxed bill should be converted into a judgment. The respondent's arguments regarding the absence of an Advocate—Client relationship and the effect of the consent order were found to lack merit, as the costs in question arose from a specific application for which the court had expressly awarded...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The motion application dated September 17, 2024, is allowed in its entirety.
- The taxed sum of Kshs. 349,000 is converted into a judgment of this court in favor of the plaintiffs against the second defendant, Tropicana Hotels Limited.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Maurizio & 3 others v SBM Bank & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 143 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4500 (KLR) (12 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 4500 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Environment & Land Case 143 of 2018
EK Makori, J
June 12, 2025
Between
Nardielo Maurizio
1st Plaintiff
Maurizio Capordarca
2nd Plaintiff
Testa Giancarlo
3rd Plaintiff
Fredriga Giancarlo
4th Plaintiff
and
SBM Bank
1st Defendant
Tropicana Hotels Limited
2nd Defendant
Keysian Auctioneers
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. The motion application dated September 17, 2024, seeks to convert a sum of Kshs. 349,000 into a judgment of this court, pursuant to the ruling on the taxation of the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated July 2022, 2022. This arises from the taxation conducted by the taxing master of this court in her ruling dated July 29, 2024.
2. The motion is supported by the attached affidavit deposed by Mr. Maurizio Nardielo on September 17, 2024, which states that costs were awarded to the applicants against the second respondent herein, Tropicana Hotel Limited.
3. The application is opposed by the second defendant/respondent, who asserts that no Advocate—Client relationship exists, nor has there ever been one between the firm of Ochoki & Ochoki Associates and Tropicana Hotels Limited, or between the plaintiffs (who are not advocates) and Tropicana Hotels Limited. Ochoki & Ochoki Associates previously filed an Advocate—Client Bill of Costs against Tropicana Hotels Limited in 2021, which they later withdrew. The plaintiffs are not permitted to file an Advocate—Client Bill of Costs against their opponents. The claim for Advocate-Client fees, as granted by the Honorable Deputy Registrar on July 29, 2024, is per incuriam.
4. The respondent contends that the Taxing Master misinterpreted the consent order dated January 25, 2006. The suit was compromised on the basis that each party bears its own costs. Consequently, no fees are recoverable in the suit by either party against the other. The amended Notice of Motion application for judgment in favor of an advocate against an alleged client is deficient as it is based on the taxation of a Party & Party Bill of Costs.
5. Under no circumstances could the costs of an application be assessed at more than Kshs. 300,000/- and the court is urged to dismiss the Notice of Motion application amended on February 12, 2025, with costs.
6. The issue that falls for the determination of this court is whether to convert the taxed bill to a judgment of this court.
7. I have reviewed the record and reckon that on July 29, 2024, the taxing master, who is responsible for assessing and taxing costs, taxed the bill of costs dated July 20, 2022, after hearing the arguments presented by both parties. She observed as follows:“I have had the benefit of perusing the court file. On 20th September 2019, the court awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the application dated 18th June 2018. This is the application that the plaintiffs contend is the subject of the present bill of costs. As at that time, the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant were not parties to the suit.”
8. The record indicates that when this bill was taxed, the respondents actively opposed it.
9. The issue for me here is to decide whether to have the bill converted into a judgment of the court, rather than the merits or demerits of the taxation by the taxing master. I am not reviewing the findings of the taxing master.
10. As a result, I find that the respondent's assertions have no merit. I therefore allow the motion application dated September 17, 2024, in its entirety.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN MALINDI ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the Presence of:Mr. Sausi for the ApplicantHappy: Court AssistantIn the absence of:Ms. Muyaa for the 1st Respondent