[2024] KEELC 5699 (KLR)
The court found that the sum paid by the applicant included not only the taxed costs but also the costs of executing the warrants of arrest, investigating the judgment debtor's whereabouts, and attendance costs for the decree holder's counsel. The applicant did not challenge the specific amounts for execution and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 5699 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Justus Muthini Mwake; Respondent: The District Commissioner Mwingi District; Respondent: Minister Of Lands And Settlement; Respondent: The Director Of Lands Adjudication; Respondent: The Chief Land Registrar; Respondent: The Land Registrar Kitui District; Respondent: The Land Adjudication Mwingi District; Respondent: Joseph Mutio Kinyambu; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Refund of Overpaid Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the decree holder
- Judges
- A Nyukuri
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Execution of Decree, Civil Jail, 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
Justus Muthini Mwake
Applicant
The District Commissioner Mwingi District
Respondent
Minister Of Lands And Settlement
Respondent
The Director Of Lands Adjudication
Respondent
The Chief Land Registrar
Respondent
The Land Registrar Kitui District
Respondent
The Land Adjudication Mwingi District
Respondent
Joseph Mutio Kinyambu
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Refund of Overpaid Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an overpayment of Kshs. 63,670/= to the decree holder by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the alleged overpaid amount from the 7th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sum paid by the applicant included not only the taxed costs but also the costs of executing the warrants of arrest, investigating the judgment debtor's whereabouts, and attendance costs for the decree holder's counsel. The applicant did not challenge the specific amounts for execution and attendance, and these were properly chargeable to the judgment debtor under the law. The court held that the applicant, having failed to settle the decree and necessitated his own arrest and committal, could not escape liability for these additional costs. There was therefore no justification for a refund of the alleged overpayment, and the application lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the decree holder
Orders
- The application dated 16th March 2023 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the 7th respondent (decree holder).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Mwake v District Commissioner Mwingi District & 7 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2007) [2024] KEELC 5699 (KLR) (24 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5699 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2007
A Nyukuri, J
July 24, 2024
Between
Justus Muthini Mwake
Applicant
and
The District Commissioner Mwingi District
1st Respondent
Minister Of Lands And Settlement
2nd Respondent
The Director Of Lands Adjudication
3rd Respondent
The Chief Land Registrar
4th Respondent
The Land Registrar Kitui District
5th Respondent
The Land Adjudication Mwingi District
6th Respondent
Joseph Mutio Kinyambu
7th Respondent
The Attorney General
8th Respondent
Ruling
1. Before court is the application dated 16th March 2023, filed by the applicant seeking the following orders;a.That the 7th respondent Joseph Mutio Kinyambu be and is hereby ordered to pay back/refund a sum of Kshs. 63,670/= being overpayment made in respect of the costs in these proceedings.b.That the costs of this application be paid by the 7th respondent.
2. The application is based on grounds on the face of it and supported by the affidavit of Justus Muthini Mwake, the applicant. The applicant’s case is that, the party and party bill of costs between the applicant and the 7th respondent was taxed at Kshs. 188,655/=. He averred that the said 7th respondent had applied for warrants of arrest against the applicant, for Kshs. 191,655/= and that he was arrested on 18th December 2022 and committed to civil jail for one month, whereof his friends sent Kshs. 253,825/= to the 7th respondent’s advocates M/s B. M. Musyoki & Co. Advocates, in settlement of the costs. According to him, there was an overpayment of Kshs. 63,670/=. He did attach payment messages to the said firm. To the tune of Kshs. 253,825/=.
3. The application was opposed. Joseph Mutio Kinyambu, the 7th respondent swore an affidavit dated 22nd May 2023. He deposed that its trite that costs of execution of warrants are borne by the judgment debtor and that when the applicant was presented to court, the applicant’s advocates made an application for ascertainment of execution costs of Kshs. 60,000/=, which was allowed and the applicant committed for Kshs. 253,825/= including statutory sum of one month’s subsistence in civil jail. Further that this position was brought to the attention of one Karanja Advocate, who informed the respondent’s advocates that he had been retained by the judgment debtor to oversee his release from a civil jail. It was also his contention that when the matter came up for mention on 18th January 2023, the judgement debtor did not raise the issue of overpayment, since the same would have been explained to him by the advocates or the court. He concluded by stating that the application was frivolous, vexatious and a waste of the court’s time.
Analysis and determination 4. I have considered the application and the response thereto and the only issue that arise for determination is whether there was an overpayment to the decree holder of Kshs. 63,670/=. The record shows that when the applicant was in court on 19th December 2022, the advocate for the respondent explained how the sum of Kshs. 253,755/= was arrived as it included the cost of executing the warrants of arrest, investigating the judgment debtor’s whereabouts, together with attendance costs.
5. It is clear from the warrants of arrest that the cost of execution of the warrants are borne by the judgment debtor. In addition, the attendance costs of the respondent’s counsel were payable by the applicant. The applicant has not challenged the amount stated for execution of the warrants of arrest. The amount sought to be refunded includes the amount incurred for executing warrants of arrest, as well as attendance fees for counsel of the decree holder. It is the judgment debtor who failed to settle the decree necessitating his arrest and counsel’s attendance for his committal to civil jail, and therefore he cannot escape bearing the cost of his arrest and counsel’s attendance. Therefore, there is no justification for refund of the sum of Kshs. 63,670/=.
6. In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 16th March 2023 and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the decree holder.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORMA. NYUKURIJUDGEIn the presence of;Mr. Keyonzo for exparte ApplicantMr. Muli holding brief for Kasimu for 7th respondentNo appearance for other respondentsCourt assistant – Josephinemks elc misc. appl. no. 317 of 2007 – ruling 0