[2024] KEHC 11960 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 11960 (KLR)

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to tax the advocate/client bill of costs because the subject matter originated from a case before the Environment and Land Court. The court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 11960 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sala And Mudany Advocates; Defendant: County Government Of Kisumu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Case E195 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Outcome
Bill of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent; file closed.
Judges
MS Shariff
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Jurisdiction, Environment and Land Court, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Advocate Client Costs Jurisdiction Environment and Land Court Taxation of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sala And Mudany Advocates

Plaintiff

County Government Of Kisumu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Advocate Client Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs arising from a matter before the Environment and Land Court.
  2. 2 Whether the bill of costs filed by the applicant should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to tax the advocate/client bill of costs because the subject matter originated from a case before the Environment and Land Court. The court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, only the Environment and Land Court has the requisite jurisdiction to handle such matters. The applicant, being a law firm, was expected to be aware of this legal position. Consequently, the bill of costs was struck out for want of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Bill of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent; file closed.

Orders

  • The bill of costs dated 16.4.2024 is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • Costs to the respondent assessed at Kshs. 15,000.