[2018] KEHC 7495 (KLR)
The court found that the Magistrate misdirected himself by disallowing items in the Bill of Costs solely on the ground that they were not provided for under the Auctioneers Act, without proper reference to the Fourth Schedule which does provide for such fees. The court held that the Bill of Costs should be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7495 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Nashon Kerati Muriri t/a Muriri Auctioneers; Respondent: South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd; Respondent: Margaret T. Obonyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 81 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Auctioneer Fees, Bill of Costs Assessment
- 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
Nashon Kerati Muriri t/a Muriri Auctioneers
Appellant
South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd
Respondent
Margaret T. Obonyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in law by disallowing items 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 in the Bill of Costs on the ground that they were not provided for under the Auctioneers Act.
- 2 Whether the Bill of Costs should be reassessed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Auctioneers Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Magistrate misdirected himself by disallowing items in the Bill of Costs solely on the ground that they were not provided for under the Auctioneers Act, without proper reference to the Fourth Schedule which does provide for such fees. The court held that the Bill of Costs should be reassessed in accordance with the law and that the taxing officer must provide clear legal reasons for any disallowance. The appeal was allowed, the previous ruling set aside, and the Bill of Costs ordered to be reassessed before a different Magistrate or Taxing Officer.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed and the ruling delivered on 11/10/2016 is set aside.
- The Bill of Costs dated 03/08/2016 shall be placed for assessment before a Magistrate or Taxing Officer other than Hon. E. M. Nyaga.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENY
AT MIGORI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2016
NASHON KERATI MURIRI t/a
MURIRI AUCTIONEERS.....................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
SOUTH NYANZA SUGAR CO. LTD........1ST RESPONDENT
MARGARET T. OBONYO........................2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the ruling and order of Hon.
E. M.Nyaga,Senior ResidentMagistrate in Migori
ChiefMagistrate'sMisc.Application No.69 of 2016
delivered on 11/10/2016).
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment relates to the appeal filed by the Appellant against the ruling of Hon. E. M. Nyaga, then Senior Resident Magistrate made on 11/10/2016 upon the assessment of the Appellant's Bill of Costs dated 03/08/2016.
2. The Appellant is a Licensed Auctioneer under the law and was ordered by the lower court to commence execution of the lawful decree in Migori Chief Magistrate's Civil Case No. 1695 of 2015. To that end the court issued Warrants of Attachment and Sale accordingly. The Auctioneer proceeded and discharged his duty and filed a Bill of Costs for Kshs. 59,046/74 for assessment.
3. The Bill of Costs had 13 items and upon assessment items 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 were disallowed on the ground that the same were not provided for under the Auctioneers Act.
4. The Appellant then aggrieved by that decision preferred an appeal the subject of this judgment. In a Memorandum of Appeal filed on 07/11/2016, the Appellant raised ten grounds of appeal.
5. The Appellant then filed a Notice of Motion dated 05/06/2017 seeking to strike out the second Respondent herein from the appeal. The application was served and allowed by the consent of the parties. The appeal therefore proceeded against the first Respondent only.
6. The appeal was heard by way of written submissions where both parties duly complied. At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant appeared in person and condensed all the ten grounds of appeal to mainly one ground that the Learned Magistrate erred in law in holding that items 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 in the Bill of Costs were not provided for under the Auctioneers Act and thereby disallowing them as against the Respondents. The Respondent was represented by Counsel. In their detailed submissions, Counsels contended that the items under appeal were rightly taxed off because some were truly not provided for in the Auctioneers Act while others were not proved to have been incurred and therefore due.
7. I have intently looked at this appeal and the same is meritorious. It is a fact that the Auctioneer fees are indeed provided for under the Auctioneer Act more so under the Fourth Schedule thereof. The Learned Magistrate therefore misdirected himself on that legal point and hence arrived at a wrong finding. On the other hand, the taxing officer did not state that some items were not proved as required in law, but only gave one reason and it was that the items were not provided for in the law.
8. Whereas the fees are so provided aforesaid, the same can only be awarded to an Applicant upon proof and as provided in law. I have looked at the disputed items against the provisions of the Fourth Schedule and I am of the considered view that the entire Bill of Costs ought to be re-assessed. Needless to say, courts while issuing warrants of attachments and sale must clearly satisfy themselves that the Auctioneer/Applicant is duly licensed in law to carry out the execution in the first instance. That will be a sure way of taking an active role in upholding not only the integrity of the Court system but of the Judiciary as an institution.
9. The following final orders do issue: -
a) The appeal be and is hereby allowed and the ruling delivered on 11/10/2016 is hereby set-aside;
b) The Bill of Costs dated 03/08/2016 shall be placed for assessment before any other Magistrate / Taxing Officer other than Hon, E. M. Nyaga, now Principal Magistrate;
c) The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the First Respondent herein.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at MIGORI this 22nd day of March 2018.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE
Judgment delivered in open Court and in the presence of: -
Nashon Kerati Muririthe Appellant in person.
Mr. Marvin OderoCounsel instructed by Messrs. Okong’o, Wandago & Company Advocates for the First Respondent.
Ms. Nyauke- Court Assistant