' ''(Appeal from the Ruling of the Honourable W. Kugwa [R.M.] delivered and dated on 22nd day of November, 2023, in Kisii Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No.329 of 2020)
1. The appellant moved the lower court in CMCC no. 329 of 2022 under Articles 47, 48 and 50 (2) (k) of the Constitution of Kenya Sections 1A, 1B ,3A and 63 of the Civil procedure Rules and orders 21 Rule 9 (2) and 93) , Order 51 of the Civil procedure rules seeking setting aside , warrants of attachment and sale and the Bill of costs arguing that the warrants were obtained unprocedurally and that the Bill of costs was improperly on record as the same was not filed and that it was also not taxed as required by law. The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 1.11.23 saying that the , warrants of attachment and sale was obtained procedurally and if there was any mistake then the same should not be visited upon him since is a decree holder entitled to enjoy the fruits of his Judgment .
2. The learned magistrate in His ruling dated 22.11.23 found that even though the procedure used to obtain the warrants was wrong the fact that the appellant owes the respondent cannot be extinguished . He upheld the execution.
3. The Appellant moved this court on appeal citing the following grounds ;
a. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a contradictory Ruling wherein the court acknowledged in its Ruling that a wrong procedure was deployed by the Auctioneer in endeavors of realizing the Respondent’s claims on the decretal sums plus costs but in a strange turn of events in the final orders the trial court slaps the Appellant the victim of “wrong procedure” with an order to pay the perpetrator of the “wrong procedure” Auctioneer’s costs!
b. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a Ruling per incuriam as the same is devoid of reasons for the decision there is no mention and/or analysis whatsoever of the law which the Application is premised or the evidence tendered in support of the Appellant’s application at the trial court.
c. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by blatantly ignoring the prayers sought in the Appellant’s application; nothing in the entire Ruling addresses the prayers to set aside Warrants of Attachment of Moveable Property, the prayer to expunge the Respondent’s undated application for Execution from the court record since it was not duly filed and the prayer to expunge the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 10th day of September, 2023.
d. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a Ruling that was against the weight of evidence annexed to the supporting affidavit to the motion.
e. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by entirely ignoring the Appellant’s grounds in support of the application, the supporting affidavit to the application and the Appellant’s submissions before the trial court hence arriving a Ruling that is at stark variance with the prayers in the application and evidence tendered.
f. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the Appellant pay the Auctioneer’s costs as their action was attributed to the failure by the appellant to pay the Respondent but failed to address the fact that there was no competent application for execution duly filed on record for the court to determine thereby arriving at an erroneous finding.
g. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the Respondent serve the Appellant with the Bill of Costs and same be filed within 7 days of the date of delivery of the Ruling but failed to make any finding on the Bill of costs already unprocedurally on record.
h. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by entirely ignoring the admissions by the Respondent in their Replying Affidavit to the application before court wherein they acknowledged that if there was any mistake in procedure of execution the same was occasioned by court registry attendants thereby arriving at a decision that is erroneous.
i. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by ignoring the import of the authority relied upon by the Appellant in the trial court on the issue of assessment of costs by an unqualified person and entirely ignored addressing this ground raised by the Appellant in the trial court thereby arriving at a decision that is erroneous.
j. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a ruling not based on the evidence tendered by the parties.
4. The appellant thus sought orders that-
a. The Ruling of the learned trial magistrate dated and delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2023 be set aside and/or quashed.
b. The Honourable court be pleased to set aside the Warrants of Attachments of Moveable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money both issued on the 11th day of October, 2023 since the same were obtained unprocedurally, irregularly and illegally.
c. The Honourable Court be pleased to expunge the Respondent’s undated application for Execution from the trial court record since it was not duly filed.
d. The Honourable Court be pleased to expunge the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 10th day of September, 2023 from the trial court record since it was not duly filed.
e. Costs of the Appeal be borne by the Respondent.
f. Any such and/or further orders that the Honourable Court shall deem just and expedient in the circumstances.
g. Appelants submissions.
5. The Appellant''''s case is that the trial court ignored the prayers sought by the Appellant in the Application dated 24th day of October, 2023 and ordered the Appellant to pay Auctioneers costs despite acknowledging that the Auctioneer deployed a wrong procedure in obtaining the Warrants of Attachment of Movable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money.Also that The trial court failed to address itself on the fact that the Application for execution by the Respondent was never duly filed, there was no Decree dated 7th day of September, 2023 that was purported to be executed, the Bill of Costs by the Respondent was never duly filed and that the Bill of Costs was assessed by an unqualified person.
6. It is the Appellant''''s contention an Auctioneer who has irregularly and illegally obtained Warrants of Attachment of Movable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money cannot be awarded Auctioneer''''s costs for the same Warrants.
7. The Respondent opposed the Appellant''''s Application in the trial court through a Replying Affidavit sworn on the 1 day of November, 2023 Page 31 to Page 33 of the Record of Appeal. It is the Respondent''''s case that the process used to acquire warrants of attachment was procedural and no irregularities or forgeries were involved in acquiring the same as the court record shows that all mandatory requirements stipulated under the Auctioneers Act and Rules were followed to the later. On the issue of failure to duly file the Application for execution it is the Respondent''''s case that it was properly filed and lodged in the registry for assessment and in any event if there is a mistake and/or oversight on any procedures then the same was occasioned by the registry attendants. It was the Respondent''''s further contention that any mistake occasioned by the Judicial Officer then should not be meted to an innocent party/auctioneer who had no powers over the same in terms of assessment. The Respondent further indicates that a successful party is entitled to the fruits of his Judgment and goes on to conclude that the Application is an afterthought and not justiciable, and urges the Honourable Court to dismiss it with costs
8. Whether it was proper for the trial court to award Auctioneer''''s costs after making a finding that the Auctioneer deployed a wrong procedure in obtaining the Warranty of Attachment of Movable Property.
It was submitted that the ruling was manifestly contradictory as the trial court to slap the Appellant with costs while he was the victim of the "wrong procedure" and that no reasons were advanced for the said decision
Also that the prayers to set aside the warrants and expunged the bill of costs and application for execution were not addressed and thus the ruling was erroneous .
all these indicators, the trial court arrived at a decision that is erroneous which calls for this Honourable Court''''s intervention.
9. The appellant also submitted that the trial court ignored the import of the authority relied upon by the Appellant in the trial court on the issue of assessment of costs by an unqualified. person and entirely ignored addressing this ground raised by the Appellant in the trial court. We submit that once the trial court acknowledged that the assessment of a bill of cost is a judicial function and not an administrative function, then the Appellant was entitled to the setting aside of the warrants taken out by the Auctioneer and that in the circumstances the Auctioneer was not entitled to the award of cost Auctioneer''''s costs . Also that the appellant in their record of appeal relied on various cases, civil misc e003 of 2020 , where the judge stated in paragraph 10 that ; In this regard I do concur with Mrima J in Richard Otieno Oloo vs Anastacia Andit Olso and Anor [2019] eKLR, Limo Jin Bernard Gichohi Njira vs Kanini Njiira Kathendu Anor [2015] eKLR and Aburili J in Nyamongo & Nyamongo Advocates vs Pan African Insurance Company Ltd & Anor [2016] eKLR on the question as to whether the executive officer has the powers to tax the bill, supported by the ruling of mrima J in Richard Otieno oloo versus Anastacia onditi oloo and another misc application 38 of 2019 where the judge stated that;
Section 27 aforesaid deals with assessment of costs. The section does not deal with taxation thereof. It is therefore still in order to find, which I hereby do, that the subordinate courts do not have powers to tax bills of costs. Instead the subordinate courts assess the bills of costs. ...
..19. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act defines a ‘Court’ to mean the High Court or a subordinate court while exercising civil jurisdiction. A Magistrate’s court is a subordinate court established by Article 169(1)(a) of the Constitution. Section 5 of the Magistrates’ Court Act No. 26 of 2015 which came into force on 02/01/2016 provides that: -
A magistrate’s court shall be subordinate to the High Court and shall be duly constituted when presided over by a chief magistrate, a senior principal magistrate, a principal magistrate, a senior resident magistrate or a resident magistrate.
20. The Magistrates’ Court Act does not delegate any of the judicial functions of a magistrate to be undertaken by another person save a fellow magistrate or any person appointed to act in the particular office. (See the definition of a ‘Magistrate’ in Section 2 of the Magistrates’ Court Act)...
In paragraph 25, the judge stated that ; ...I therefore join my colleagues, Aburili, J. in Nyamongo & Nyamongo v Pan African Insurance Company Limited & Another (2016) eKLR and Limo, J. in Benard Gichobi Njira v Kanini Njira Kathendu & Another (2015) eKLR on the above finding.
10. The respondent did not file submissions .
11. I have carefully considered the appeal and the submissions by the appellant. The issues arising for determination are ;
a. whether the learned trial magistrate erred in upholding execution of decretal sum plus costs whereas costs had not been taxed.
b. Whether the entire execution process was null and void
12. The appellant argued that the trial court in its ruling dated 22.11.23 contradicted its self when it held that the procedure to Contain the warrants of attachment was not proper and at the same time agreed with the said execution and declined to set aside the said execution.
13. It is not disputed that there is Judgment dated 7.9.23 in favour of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of Kshs 841,000/= . After the said Judgment the respondent proceed to draw a Bill of costs vide a letter dated 10.9.23 addressed to counsel for the Appellant . The same was received by the Chief Magistrates Court registry on 24.10.23. The decree and certificate of costs , a Warrants of attachment and warrants of sale are all dated 11.10.23 were also filed with the said Bill on the same date. The undated application for execution bears the stamp of the date 11.10.21 .
14. Order 21 Rule 9A- 9C provides for the procedure for filing , hearing and determination a bill of costs in the Magistrate’s court to wit -
. 9A. Party to file and serve letter as to costs [Order 21, rule 9A]
(1) A party claiming costs at a Magistrates Court shall file a written request, statement of costs and
supporting documents with the Court and serve it on the other parties with a breakdown of the
costs sought.
9B. Respondent may admit, partially reject or wholly reject letter [Order 21, rule 9B]
(2) Once served with the written request, a statement of costs and supporting documents under sub rule1, the Respondent may file a response with the Court within seven days of service
9C. Court to make determination within 14 days [Order 21, rule 9C]
(3) The Court shall consider the written request, statement of costs and supporting documents filed by the parties within fourteen days of response by the respondent and make appropriate orders as to costs .
15 . It is clear that the above procedure was not adhered to . There is also indication was paid for and taxed by the Learned Magistrate as required by law. It has thus emerged that the bill of costs was improperly placed on record and I proceed to strike it out . The warrants of attachment and sale included the ‘’ costs ‘’ which was being executed and yet the appellant was not heard on the issue of costs . Article 48 of the Constitution guarantees access to Justice to all and the right to be heard is fundamental . Warrants of attachment and sale cannot also issue together as the property must be attached first then a proclamation issued under Rule 12 (1) (b) of the Auctioneers rules which serves as a notice to the owner to redeem the property as per Rule 12 (c) of the said rules and the warrants returned to court before warrants of sale can be issued . Though justice delayed is justice denied , on the converse , justice hurried can also be justice denied . The manner in which the processes herein were hurried without following the laid down procedures is wanting I find that the learned trial magistrate erred in upholding the execution of costs which had not been taxed .
16. The entire execution process was thus irregular .
17. I allow the appeal and I proceed to issue the following orders :
a. The ruling of the learned magistrate dated 22.11.23 is hereby quashed .
b. The warrants of attachment and sale issued on 11.10.23 are set side for being obtained irregularly.
c. The certificate of costs dated 11.10.23 in the decree issued on an even date is set aside .
d . The Bill of costs dated 11.10.23 is struck out. A fresh bill of costs be filed for taxation as required by law.
d. Costs of the appeal to the appellant in the sum of Kshs 50, 000/= .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
23.10.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT & CA KIPCHIRCHIR. RESPONDENT ABSENT .
'' '
1. The appellant moved the lower court in CMCC no. 329 of 2022 under Articles 47, 48 and 50 (2) (k) of the Constitution of Kenya Sections 1A, 1B ,3A and 63 of the Civil procedure Rules and orders 21 Rule 9 (2) and 93) , Order 51 of the Civil procedure rules seeking setting aside , warrants of attachment and sale and the Bill of costs arguing that the warrants were obtained unprocedurally and that the Bill of costs was improperly on record as the same was not filed and that it was also not taxed as required by law. The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 1.11.23 saying that the , warrants of attachment and sale was obtained procedurally and if there was any mistake then the same should not be visited upon him since is a decree holder entitled to enjoy the fruits of his Judgment .
2. The learned magistrate in His ruling dated 22.11.23 found that even though the procedure used to obtain the warrants was wrong the fact that the appellant owes the respondent cannot be extinguished . He upheld the execution.
3. The Appellant moved this court on appeal citing the following grounds ;
a. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a contradictory Ruling wherein the court acknowledged in its Ruling that a wrong procedure was deployed by the Auctioneer in endeavors of realizing the Respondent’s claims on the decretal sums plus costs but in a strange turn of events in the final orders the trial court slaps the Appellant the victim of “wrong procedure” with an order to pay the perpetrator of the “wrong procedure” Auctioneer’s costs!
b. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a Ruling per incuriam as the same is devoid of reasons for the decision there is no mention and/or analysis whatsoever of the law which the Application is premised or the evidence tendered in support of the Appellant’s application at the trial court.
c. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by blatantly ignoring the prayers sought in the Appellant’s application; nothing in the entire Ruling addresses the prayers to set aside Warrants of Attachment of Moveable Property, the prayer to expunge the Respondent’s undated application for Execution from the court record since it was not duly filed and the prayer to expunge the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 10th day of September, 2023.
d. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a Ruling that was against the weight of evidence annexed to the supporting affidavit to the motion.
e. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by entirely ignoring the Appellant’s grounds in support of the application, the supporting affidavit to the application and the Appellant’s submissions before the trial court hence arriving a Ruling that is at stark variance with the prayers in the application and evidence tendered.
f. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the Appellant pay the Auctioneer’s costs as their action was attributed to the failure by the appellant to pay the Respondent but failed to address the fact that there was no competent application for execution duly filed on record for the court to determine thereby arriving at an erroneous finding.
g. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the Respondent serve the Appellant with the Bill of Costs and same be filed within 7 days of the date of delivery of the Ruling but failed to make any finding on the Bill of costs already unprocedurally on record.
h. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by entirely ignoring the admissions by the Respondent in their Replying Affidavit to the application before court wherein they acknowledged that if there was any mistake in procedure of execution the same was occasioned by court registry attendants thereby arriving at a decision that is erroneous.
i. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by ignoring the import of the authority relied upon by the Appellant in the trial court on the issue of assessment of costs by an unqualified person and entirely ignored addressing this ground raised by the Appellant in the trial court thereby arriving at a decision that is erroneous.
j. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by delivering a ruling not based on the evidence tendered by the parties.
4. The appellant thus sought orders that-
a. The Ruling of the learned trial magistrate dated and delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2023 be set aside and/or quashed.
b. The Honourable court be pleased to set aside the Warrants of Attachments of Moveable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money both issued on the 11th day of October, 2023 since the same were obtained unprocedurally, irregularly and illegally.
c. The Honourable Court be pleased to expunge the Respondent’s undated application for Execution from the trial court record since it was not duly filed.
d. The Honourable Court be pleased to expunge the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 10th day of September, 2023 from the trial court record since it was not duly filed.
e. Costs of the Appeal be borne by the Respondent.
f. Any such and/or further orders that the Honourable Court shall deem just and expedient in the circumstances.
g. Appelants submissions.
5. The Appellant''''s case is that the trial court ignored the prayers sought by the Appellant in the Application dated 24th day of October, 2023 and ordered the Appellant to pay Auctioneers costs despite acknowledging that the Auctioneer deployed a wrong procedure in obtaining the Warrants of Attachment of Movable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money.Also that The trial court failed to address itself on the fact that the Application for execution by the Respondent was never duly filed, there was no Decree dated 7th day of September, 2023 that was purported to be executed, the Bill of Costs by the Respondent was never duly filed and that the Bill of Costs was assessed by an unqualified person.
6. It is the Appellant''''s contention an Auctioneer who has irregularly and illegally obtained Warrants of Attachment of Movable Property in execution of decree for money and Warrant of Sale of Property in Execution of Decree for money cannot be awarded Auctioneer''''s costs for the same Warrants.
7. The Respondent opposed the Appellant''''s Application in the trial court through a Replying Affidavit sworn on the 1 day of November, 2023 Page 31 to Page 33 of the Record of Appeal. It is the Respondent''''s case that the process used to acquire warrants of attachment was procedural and no irregularities or forgeries were involved in acquiring the same as the court record shows that all mandatory requirements stipulated under the Auctioneers Act and Rules were followed to the later. On the issue of failure to duly file the Application for execution it is the Respondent''''s case that it was properly filed and lodged in the registry for assessment and in any event if there is a mistake and/or oversight on any procedures then the same was occasioned by the registry attendants. It was the Respondent''''s further contention that any mistake occasioned by the Judicial Officer then should not be meted to an innocent party/auctioneer who had no powers over the same in terms of assessment. The Respondent further indicates that a successful party is entitled to the fruits of his Judgment and goes on to conclude that the Application is an afterthought and not justiciable, and urges the Honourable Court to dismiss it with costs
8. Whether it was proper for the trial court to award Auctioneer''''s costs after making a finding that the Auctioneer deployed a wrong procedure in obtaining the Warranty of Attachment of Movable Property.
It was submitted that the ruling was manifestly contradictory as the trial court to slap the Appellant with costs while he was the victim of the "wrong procedure" and that no reasons were advanced for the said decision
Also that the prayers to set aside the warrants and expunged the bill of costs and application for execution were not addressed and thus the ruling was erroneous .
all these indicators, the trial court arrived at a decision that is erroneous which calls for this Honourable Court''''s intervention.
9. The appellant also submitted that the trial court ignored the import of the authority relied upon by the Appellant in the trial court on the issue of assessment of costs by an unqualified. person and entirely ignored addressing this ground raised by the Appellant in the trial court. We submit that once the trial court acknowledged that the assessment of a bill of cost is a judicial function and not an administrative function, then the Appellant was entitled to the setting aside of the warrants taken out by the Auctioneer and that in the circumstances the Auctioneer was not entitled to the award of cost Auctioneer''''s costs . Also that the appellant in their record of appeal relied on various cases, civil misc e003 of 2020 , where the judge stated in paragraph 10 that ; In this regard I do concur with Mrima J in Richard Otieno Oloo vs Anastacia Andit Olso and Anor [2019] eKLR, Limo Jin Bernard Gichohi Njira vs Kanini Njiira Kathendu Anor [2015] eKLR and Aburili J in Nyamongo & Nyamongo Advocates vs Pan African Insurance Company Ltd & Anor [2016] eKLR on the question as to whether the executive officer has the powers to tax the bill, supported by the ruling of mrima J in Richard Otieno oloo versus Anastacia onditi oloo and another misc application 38 of 2019 where the judge stated that;
Section 27 aforesaid deals with assessment of costs. The section does not deal with taxation thereof. It is therefore still in order to find, which I hereby do, that the subordinate courts do not have powers to tax bills of costs. Instead the subordinate courts assess the bills of costs. ...
..19. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act defines a ‘Court’ to mean the High Court or a subordinate court while exercising civil jurisdiction. A Magistrate’s court is a subordinate court established by Article 169(1)(a) of the Constitution. Section 5 of the Magistrates’ Court Act No. 26 of 2015 which came into force on 02/01/2016 provides that: -
A magistrate’s court shall be subordinate to the High Court and shall be duly constituted when presided over by a chief magistrate, a senior principal magistrate, a principal magistrate, a senior resident magistrate or a resident magistrate.
20. The Magistrates’ Court Act does not delegate any of the judicial functions of a magistrate to be undertaken by another person save a fellow magistrate or any person appointed to act in the particular office. (See the definition of a ‘Magistrate’ in Section 2 of the Magistrates’ Court Act)...
In paragraph 25, the judge stated that ; ...I therefore join my colleagues, Aburili, J. in Nyamongo & Nyamongo v Pan African Insurance Company Limited & Another (2016) eKLR and Limo, J. in Benard Gichobi Njira v Kanini Njira Kathendu & Another (2015) eKLR on the above finding.
10. The respondent did not file submissions .
11. I have carefully considered the appeal and the submissions by the appellant. The issues arising for determination are ;
a. whether the learned trial magistrate erred in upholding execution of decretal sum plus costs whereas costs had not been taxed.
b. Whether the entire execution process was null and void
12. The appellant argued that the trial court in its ruling dated 22.11.23 contradicted its self when it held that the procedure to Contain the warrants of attachment was not proper and at the same time agreed with the said execution and declined to set aside the said execution.
13. It is not disputed that there is Judgment dated 7.9.23 in favour of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of Kshs 841,000/= . After the said Judgment the respondent proceed to draw a Bill of costs vide a letter dated 10.9.23 addressed to counsel for the Appellant . The same was received by the Chief Magistrates Court registry on 24.10.23. The decree and certificate of costs , a Warrants of attachment and warrants of sale are all dated 11.10.23 were also filed with the said Bill on the same date. The undated application for execution bears the stamp of the date 11.10.21 .
14. Order 21 Rule 9A- 9C provides for the procedure for filing , hearing and determination a bill of costs in the Magistrate’s court to wit -
. 9A. Party to file and serve letter as to costs [Order 21, rule 9A]
(1) A party claiming costs at a Magistrates Court shall file a written request, statement of costs and
supporting documents with the Court and serve it on the other parties with a breakdown of the
costs sought.
9B. Respondent may admit, partially reject or wholly reject letter [Order 21, rule 9B]
(2) Once served with the written request, a statement of costs and supporting documents under sub rule1, the Respondent may file a response with the Court within seven days of service
9C. Court to make determination within 14 days [Order 21, rule 9C]
(3) The Court shall consider the written request, statement of costs and supporting documents filed by the parties within fourteen days of response by the respondent and make appropriate orders as to costs .
15 . It is clear that the above procedure was not adhered to . There is also indication was paid for and taxed by the Learned Magistrate as required by law. It has thus emerged that the bill of costs was improperly placed on record and I proceed to strike it out . The warrants of attachment and sale included the ‘’ costs ‘’ which was being executed and yet the appellant was not heard on the issue of costs . Article 48 of the Constitution guarantees access to Justice to all and the right to be heard is fundamental . Warrants of attachment and sale cannot also issue together as the property must be attached first then a proclamation issued under Rule 12 (1) (b) of the Auctioneers rules which serves as a notice to the owner to redeem the property as per Rule 12 (c) of the said rules and the warrants returned to court before warrants of sale can be issued . Though justice delayed is justice denied , on the converse , justice hurried can also be justice denied . The manner in which the processes herein were hurried without following the laid down procedures is wanting I find that the learned trial magistrate erred in upholding the execution of costs which had not been taxed .
16. The entire execution process was thus irregular .
17. I allow the appeal and I proceed to issue the following orders :
a. The ruling of the learned magistrate dated 22.11.23 is hereby quashed .
b. The warrants of attachment and sale issued on 11.10.23 are set side for being obtained irregularly.
c. The certificate of costs dated 11.10.23 in the decree issued on an even date is set aside .
d . The Bill of costs dated 11.10.23 is struck out. A fresh bill of costs be filed for taxation as required by law.
d. Costs of the appeal to the appellant in the sum of Kshs 50, 000/= .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
23.10.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT & CA KIPCHIRCHIR. RESPONDENT ABSENT .
'' '