https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4318

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO** **ELC LAND APPEAL NO. E019 OF 2023** **NYIKALAND INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES** **GROUP LTD ……………………..…………………………..1ST APPELLANT** **PAUL MUTEMI……………………………………………..2ND APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **RAFIKI MICROFINANCE BANK LTD………………………………...…..1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT** **KEYSIAN AUCTIONEERS.……………………..……….2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The **Application dated 15th May 2025** by the 1st Respondent/Applicant seeks review and/or setting aside of the ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025 by Hon. Jane Kamau dismissing its Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024. The Applicant further prays that the Bill of Costs be allowed as drawn, that the costs of the appeal be awarded in accordance with the Bill, and that costs of the present application be granted. 2. The application is premised on the grounds that the Appellants filed an appeal against the ruling of the trial court delivered on 16th May 2023. They however failed to file a Record of Appeal, prosecute the appeal, or provide any explanation for the delay despite directions having been issued. 3. Consequently, the Applicant filed an application dated 24th July 2024 seeking dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The application was allowed by this Court on 22nd October 2024, with costs awarded to the Applicant. Pursuant to this, the Applicant filed and served a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024. The Appellants neither opposed the Bill nor attended court during the taxation proceedings. 4. When the matter came up for ruling on 2nd April 2025, the Deputy Registrar dismissed the Bill of Costs on the basis that it arose from proceedings in Chief Magistrate’s Court Case No. E021 of 2023 and therefore fell outside the Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction. The Applicant contends that this finding was based on an error apparent on the face of the record, as the Bill of Costs related to the appeal filed before the Environment and Land Court and the costs awarded by the Court in its ruling of 22nd October 2024. The Applicant therefore maintains that the dismissal of the Bill was erroneous and urges the Court to review and set aside the ruling. 5. The Applicant submits that the Deputy Registrar made an error apparent on the face of the record and that the instant application is properly lodged in line with **Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act** and **Order 45, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules**. Thus, the Court should allow the application as prayed. 6. I have considered the application, the grounds in support thereof and the record of the Court. The sole issue for determination is whether sufficient grounds have been established to warrant review of the ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025. 7. It is not disputed that the Appellant instituted this appeal but failed to file a Record of Appeal or otherwise prosecute it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by this Court, and the dismissal was accompanied by an express order awarding costs to the Respondent. 8. The inevitable legal consequence of that order was that the Respondent became entitled to recover the costs of the appeal, the quantum thereof being ascertainable through taxation before the taxing officer of this Court. 9. Following that order, the Respondent prepared and filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 for taxation. The Bill was therefore intended to give effect to the costs awarded by this Court in the appeal proceedings. 10. However, in the ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025, the Deputy Registrar dismissed the Bill of Costs on the basis that it emanated from proceedings before the Chief Magistrate’s Court and that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. 11. It is on record that the Bill of Costs before the Deputy Registrar was as a result of the dismissal of the Appeal before this Court and not from the proceedings at the Lower Court. The error is self-evident. As such, the Court is satisfied that the taxing master erred in this finding. The Ruling dated 2nd April 2025 is therefore set aside. 12. The Applicant has also sought that the Court allows the dismissed Bill of Costs as drawn. However, I am unable to grant that order. This is because, taxation of costs is, in the first instance, a function vested with the Deputy Registrar. Since the Bill of Costs has not yet been taxed, this Court cannot usurp the statutory mandate of the taxing officer by assessing and awarding the costs claimed therein. 13. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 14. **The ruling delivered on 2nd April 2025 dismissing the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 is hereby reviewed and set aside.** 15. **The Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 10th December 2024 shall be placed before another Deputy Registrar for taxation in accordance with the law.** 16. **The costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.** **Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 9th day of July 2026.** **JUDY OMANGE** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Mr Wesonga for 1st Resp/ Applicant Peter – Court Assistant.