Centre for Peace and Democracy v Non Governmental Organizations (NGOS) Co-ordination Board [2019] KECA 724 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed that you cannot challenge an execution order like salary attachment when your real target is the underlying costs order—attack the right decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application for review, stay of execution and setting aside of the Deputy Registrar's order attaching one-third of the appellant's salary
Key legal issues
#Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in issuing the notice to show cause and the order attaching one-third of the appellant's salary
The Deputy Registrar did not err; she was merely performing her duties by enforcing a costs order already issued by the court (Nambuye, J), and was bound by that ruling regardless of whether the respondent's law firm was properly on record.
The court reasoned that the application attacked the wrong order: the order attaching salary was merely a mode of execution of the costs order, which would remain untouched even if the review succeeded. Order 49 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the Registrar to make formal orders for attachment. Any challenge to the legality of the costs award should have been directed at the ruling of Nambuye, J, which awarded the costs, not at the Deputy Registrar's execution order.
Whether the costs awarded could be denied because the respondent's law firm allegedly lacked instructions or was not properly on record
No. The matter concerned party and party costs; the respondent did not complain about the firm's appointment, and the respondent's legal officer deposed that instructions were issued verbally, which deposition was uncontroverted.
The court held that in party and party costs it does not matter how the law firm came on record for the respondent, which is not complaining. The costs were awarded to the respondent and could not be denied because of an irregularity in counsel's appointment. Further, the affidavit of the respondent's legal officer affirming that instructions were issued stood uncontroverted, establishing the contractual relationship between the respondent and the firm.
Legal principles established
#- A Deputy Registrar serves at the direction of the court she serves under and is bound by its decisions; she may issue formal orders for attachment and execution of a decree under Order 49 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and objections to the underlying costs order must be directed at the order imposing costs, not at the execution order.
- Party and party costs awarded to a party cannot be denied to that party because of an irregularity, if any, in the appointment of its counsel, where the party does not complain.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Miscellaneous No. 7 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (Constitution of Kenya, Article 164) against a ruling of the High Court in Miscellaneous No. 7 of 2011
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Deputy Registrar's order of 22nd November, 2011 and review/vary/set aside of that order
The order sought to be reviewed was the attachment order, not the order imposing costs; the Deputy Registrar was merely enforcing the costs order made by Nambuye, J, and her hands were tied by that ruling; the issue of the law firm's instructions was uncontroverted
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
We find that the Deputy Registrar did not err in issuing the notice to show cause and the resulting order. She was merely performing her duties, therefore regardless of whether or not the law firm was properly on record, her hands were tied by the ruling delivered by Nambuye, J.
The costs were awarded to the respondent and therefore the same cannot be denied to them because of an irregularity, if any, in the appointment of its counsel.
The upshot is that this appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Centre for Peace and Democracy v Non Governmental Organizations (NGOS) Co-ordination Board [2019] KECA 724 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/724/eng@2019-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.