Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedChamber Summons dated 14th November, 2024

Wambua v Maweu (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2871 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 March 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
2,129 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed an elderly litigant extra time to challenge taxed costs, and paused their collection until the challenge is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Alphonse Ngungi Wambua, brought a Chamber Summons dated 14th November 2024 seeking stay of execution of a decree on costs of Kshs. 223,400/= issued on 10th July 2024 in Makueni MCELC No. E024 of 2023, and leave to file a reference out of time challenging costs assessed by the Executive Officer. His suit against the Respondent had been withdrawn on 30th April 2024 with costs awarded to the Respondent. The Applicant contended the costs were grossly exaggerated, that his advocates were never served with the taxation notice, and that the time for filing a reference had lapsed. He attributed the delay to his advanced age. The Respondent did not reply despite service. The court framed two issues: whether the Applicant demonstrated merit for enlargement of time to file a reference, and whether he was entitled to stay of execution. Applying the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso and the Salat criteria, the court found the approximately four-month delay reasonably excusable given the Applicant's elderly status and granted enlargement of time. On stay, relying on Labh Singh Harman Singh and Lucy Wanjiru Kabutha, it confirmed that taxation of costs forms part of the execution process and that the court's power to stay execution of taxed costs is discretionary. The court allowed the application, granting 21 days to file a reference, staying execution of the certificate of costs pending the reference, and directing that in default execution may issue without recourse to the court. Costs were to be in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated merit in the application for enlargement of time for the filing of a reference against the decree on costs
  2. 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to stay of execution of the decree on costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Enlargement of time to file a reference against assessment of costs

Holding

The delay of about four months was reasonably excusable given the Applicant's advanced age, so extension of time was granted

Reasoning

The court applied the Leo Sila Mutiso and Salat principles on extension of time: length of and reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice. The certificate of costs was issued on 17th July 2024 and the application filed on 15th November 2024. The Applicant explained the delay by his old age which hindered issuing instructions to his advocates. The court found the explanation reasonably excusable and entitled him to enlargement of time.

p. 4
02

Stay of execution of the certificate of costs

Holding

Stay of execution of the certificate of costs was granted pending the intended reference, the court having discretion to stay execution of taxed costs

Reasoning

Relying on Labh Singh Harman Singh Ltd and Lucy Wanjiru Kabutha, the court confirmed that taxation of costs is part of the execution process and the power to stay execution of taxed costs is discretionary, to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice. Since the reference was permitted, stay pending its determination was appropriate, with a default clause allowing execution if no reference is filed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The decision whether or not to extend time is discretionary, considering length of and reason for delay, chances of success and prejudice to the respondent
  • Taxation of costs is part of the execution process and the court has power to order stay of execution of taxed costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for enlargement of time granted to the Applicant to file and serve a Reference against the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 within 21 days
  2. 2.An order for stay of execution of the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the intended reference
  3. 3.In default, execution of the certificate of costs to issue without recourse to this court

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1, 1A, 3A, 27 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules

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.

An order for enlargement of time be and is hereby granted in favour of the Applicant to file and serve a Reference against the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 issued in Makueni MCELC No. E024 of 2023 Alphonse Ngungi Wambua v Cosmas Maweu Maundu pursuant to the decree dated 30th April, 2024 within 21 days hereof.
p. 5final orders - enlargement of time
An order for stay of execution of the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 issued in Makueni MCELC No. E024 of 2023 Alphonse Ngungi Wambua v Cosmas Maweu Maundu pursuant to the decree dated 30th April, 2024 is hereby issued pending the hearing and determination of the intended reference in (1) above.
p. 5final orders - stay of execution
In default of the above orders, execution of the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 issued in Makueni MCELC No. E024 of 2023 Alphonse Ngungi Wambua v Cosmas Maweu Maundu to issue without recourse to this court.
p. 5final orders - default execution
The Applicant attributed the delay in filing of the reference to their old age which hindered issuance of instructions to his Advocates. The Applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the reference is reasonably excusable.
p. 4extension of time - excusable delay

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wambua v Maweu (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2871 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 14th November, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2871/eng@2025-03-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.