Murwithania & 3 others v M’Ikiara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7580 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 should be entered against the appellants for Kshs 67,170 in terms of the certificate of costs dated 17/6/2025
- 2.Whether the sum of Kshs 50,000 deposited in court by the appellants as security should be released to the respondents
Key legal issues
#Whether a further order entering judgment is necessary to enforce a certificate of taxed costs
No. The court declined to grant an order entering judgment for Kshs 67,170, holding that the certificate of costs suffices for enforcement, and allowed only the release of the Kshs 50,000 security deposit.
The taxing officer had taxed the respondents' bill of costs at Kshs 67,170 and a certificate of costs issued. The respondents sought entry of judgment and release of the appellants' security deposit. The court noted the application was unopposed and that Yano J's ruling of 19/12/2024 had given final disposal orders in the appeal. It held that a certificate of costs is itself enforceable, so no additional judgment-entry order was needed; it allowed the application in terms of prayer 2 only.
Legal principles established
#- Once costs have been taxed and a certificate of costs issued, enforcement of the award of costs does not require a separate order entering judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 18/6/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 2
- 2.Prayer for entry of judgment for Kshs 67,170 not granted as a separate order; the court held that enforcement of the award of costs does not require another order entering judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over an appeal pending before it (costs of the appeal); the judgment does not cite a specific provision.
Relief refused
#Order entering judgment in favour of the respondents against the appellants in the sum of Kshs 67,170
Enforcement of the taxed costs did not require a further order entering judgment; the application was allowed only in terms of prayer 2 (release of the deposit).
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment.
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.
Taking this into account, and given that the notice of motion dated 18/6/2025 is unopposed, the application is allowed in terms of prayer 2.
Enforcement of the award of costs does not require another order entering judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not identify the case number, the parties by name, or the court/decision from which the appeal was filed; the earlier ruling of Yano J dated 19/12/2024 is referenced without its case number.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murwithania & 3 others v M’Ikiara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7580/eng@2025-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.