[2024] KEELC 3844 (KLR)
The court found that the Deputy Registrar of the High Court acted without jurisdiction in taxing the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs because the matter was purely an Environment and Land Court (ELC) matter, as evidenced by the Bill of Costs referencing ELC files. The transfer of the file to the High Court was based on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 3844 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Siganga & Company Advocates; Respondent: Pamela Adhiambo Okello
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Adoption of Certificate of Costs
- Outcome
- Application for adoption of Certificate of Costs dismissed; taxation and Certificate of Costs set aside; file returned to ELC.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction of Court, Transfer of Files, 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
Siganga & Company Advocates
Applicant
Pamela Adhiambo Okello
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Adoption of Certificate of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar of the High Court had jurisdiction to tax an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs arising from an Environment and Land Court (ELC) matter.
- 2 Whether the taxation and Certificate of Costs issued without reference to the principal ELC files was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Deputy Registrar of the High Court acted without jurisdiction in taxing the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs because the matter was purely an Environment and Land Court (ELC) matter, as evidenced by the Bill of Costs referencing ELC files. The transfer of the file to the High Court was based on misleading submissions, and the High Court never formally registered the file. Furthermore, the taxation proceeded without calling for or reviewing the principal ELC files, meaning there was no evidentiary basis for the taxed items. As a result, both the taxation and the Certificate of Costs were set aside and quashed, and the file was ordered returned to the ELC for further...
Court Disposition
Application for adoption of Certificate of Costs dismissed; taxation and Certificate of Costs set aside; file returned to ELC.
Orders
- The taxation and Ruling on taxation dated 29th February 2024 by the Deputy Registrar are set aside and quashed.
- The Certificate of Costs dated 29th February 2024 is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Siganga & Company Advocates v Okello (Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3844 (KLR) (14 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 3844 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
May 14, 2024
Between
Siganga & Company Advocates
Claimant
and
Pamela Adhiambo Okello
Respondent
Ruling
1. This matter from the citation, proceedings and the Bill of Costs dated 16th May 2023 is an ELC matter. I say so because on the face of the Bill of Costs, the advocate clearly states that the Bill was for services rendered in Kisumu HCELC No. 178 of 2013 and Kisumu CMELC No. 366 of 2018.
2. It follows that the submissions by Mr. Siganga Advocate before Hon. Esther Asati J on 7th December 2023 which led to the transfer of the file from ELC to High Court Deputy Registrar of the High Court was misleading.
3. In addition, despite the file being a transferred file from ELC to High Court, the High Court never opened a file of its own meaning there is no registration of this file in our High Court system (CTS).
4. Third, is that the Deputy Registrar of the High Court proceeded to tax the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs without calling for the principal files cited in the Bill of Costs where the legal services were allegedly rendered.
5. The question is, where did the Deputy Registrar get proof of such services rendered?
6. The file is now before me for adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 29th February 2024.
7. I am unable to adopt that certificate of costs as judgment of this court because the Deputy Registrar in taxing the Bill of Costs as if it was a High Court matter when it was a purely ELC matter as stated above acted in error and without jurisdiction. Secondly, there was no basis upon which the items in the bill were allowed in the absence of the parent ELC files.
8. For the above reasons, I set aside and quash the taxation and Ruling on taxation dated 29th February 2024 delivered by the Deputy Registrar of this court and further set aside the Certificate of Costs dated 29th February 2024 and direct that this file be returned to the ELC for further directions.
9. I have taken the liberty to brief my sister Justice Esther Asati, who transferred the file to the High Court, of the discovery that I have made in this file.
10. From this end, the file is closed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kisumu this 14th Day of May, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGEPage 2 of 2