Richard Saidi v Manasse Lumwachi Hajani [1988] KECA 13 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that execution must follow the decree's figures, and costs must be taxed before any execution proceeds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether judgment was entered for Kshs 48,776.25 or Kshs 68,776.25/68,477.25
- 2.Whether the appellant paid Kshs 20,000 in excess of the amount due
- 3.Whether the bill of costs was properly taxed before execution
- 4.Whether any ground exists for interfering with the judgment and decree
Key legal issues
#Correct sum for which judgment was entered
Judgment was entered for Kshs 48,776.25, not Kshs 68,776.25; the appellant was misled by the typed record misreading the digit 4 as 6 in the judge's handwriting.
The court examined the original record and the handwritten judgment of Contran J, finding the typed record had been misread. The draft decree signed by the deputy registrar showed the principal as Kshs 48,776.25 with interest of Kshs 1,095.80, totalling Kshs 49,872.05, confirming the lower figure.
Basis of execution
Execution is founded on the decree, and only the amount in the decree is authoritative for execution.
Once judgment is entered, a decree issues before execution; any challenge to the sums must be directed at the decree itself rather than at the figure a party believes was entered in the judgment.
Taxation of costs before execution
The bill of costs was never taxed; no certificate of costs was found on the file as required, and the bill should have been taxed before execution, with interest thereafter adjusted.
Order XX rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a certificate of costs. Counsel's own letter conceded an arithmetical error of about Kshs 1,178, showing the certified figure was unreliable. After taxation, interest must be adjusted, either wiping out the balance or producing a refund.
Legal principles established
#- Execution must be based on the decree, and it is the amount in the decree, not a party's assertion of the judgment figure, that is treated as correct for execution purposes.
- A bill of costs must be taxed and certified before execution; an untaxed bill renders the process more costly as interest accrues.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear his own costs of the appeal
- 3.The bill of costs to be taxed; after taxation the interest claimed to be adjusted, which will either wipe out the outstanding balance or result in a refund of any excess paid
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Delivered the main judgment analysing the arithmetic of the claim, judgment, decree, interest and taxed costs.
September 19, 1988, Gachuhi JA delivered the following Judgment.p. 1
Wrote the judgment
Agreed with Gachuhi JA's analysis and concluded the appeal should be dismissed without costs.
Having had and considered Gachuhi, JA’s analysis of this matter, I find no reason to differ from his conclusion. So like him, I would also dismiss this appeal without costs.p. 2
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal (statutory appellate jurisdiction; provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Appellant's challenge to the judgment figures on the basis that Kshs 20,000 was paid in excess
The decree, not the judgment figure contended by the appellant, governs execution; the figure was Kshs 48,776.25, the appellant having been misled by the typed record.
Interference with the judgment on the costs/figures complaint
No ground for interference; the proper course was taxation of the uncertified bill of costs before execution.
Costs
Each party to bear his own costs of the appeal
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Execution is therefore based on the decree. It is the amount in the decree that should be considered as correct for the purpose of execution.
The appellant should attack the decree and not the figure he considers the judgment was entered for.
I think Mr Azangalala should have taxed his bill before execution. Since there is amount due, it should be taxed.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with each party bearing his costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text is a degraded copy with several gaps and apparent typographical errors in figures and words (e.g. 'Kshs 68,7776.25', 'order XX rule 8()'), which complicates verification of the quoted figures.
The coram signatures list Nyarangi and Gachuhi but the certification block omits Apaloo's presence being separately recorded beyond his concurrence; no material contradiction in holdings.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Richard Saidi v Manasse Lumwachi Hajani [1988] KECA 13 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1988). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/13/eng@1988-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.