[2024] KEHC 12278 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine an advocate/client bill of costs where the underlying subject matter is land. By operation of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12278 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu & another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E318 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- bill of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- MS Shariff
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Advocate Client Costs, Environment and Land Court Mandate
- 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
Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
County Government of Kisumu & another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine an advocate/client bill of costs arising from a land matter.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs should have been filed before the Environment and Land Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine an advocate/client bill of costs where the underlying subject matter is land. By operation of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The court cannot assume jurisdiction where it is expressly ousted by statute and the Constitution. Consequently, the bill of costs filed before the High Court was improperly before it and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
bill of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The bill of costs dated 9.8.2024 is struck out.
- Costs to the respondent assessed at Kshs. 5,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates v County Government of Kisumu & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E318 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 12278 (KLR) (14 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12278 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E318 of 2024
MS Shariff, J
October 14, 2024
Between
Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Advocate
and
The County Government of Kisumu & another
Client
Ruling
1. Whereas the subject matter that gave rise to this bill of costs was land, the Applicant has opted to file advocate/client bill of costs before this court and not the Environment and Land Court.
2. This court has no jurisdiction over this matter as the same falls within the purview of the Environment and Land Court by dint of article 162 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Jurisdiction is everything and this court cannot cloth itself with jurisdiction that it does not have.
3. Premised on the aforesaid reason the bill of costs dated 9. 8.2024 is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondent assessed at Kshs.5,000.
4. This file is marked as closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 14THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. M. S. SHARIFFJUDGE