Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment

Lexo Energy Limited v Nyanya (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2575 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2026
MNMwangi Njoroge
485 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Malindi court ruled that applications to set aside a Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling must go back to that same Deputy Registrar, not to the judge.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant/applicant filed an application dated 22nd August 2025 seeking to set aside the ruling and taxation of a bill of costs delivered on 18th August 2025, and leave to unconditionally defend the bill of costs dated 3rd June 2025, on the ground of alleged non-service of the bill of costs. The applicant contended that the taxation was flawed because the subject matter was a non-liquidated lease claim with a monthly rent of KShs 550,000/-, and that taxing the bill based on property value produced manifestly excessive and unjust costs, while the defendant was denied an opportunity to challenge the taxation due to non-service. The plaintiff, through the replying affidavit of its Legal and Human Resources Manager Kelvin Gathara, maintained that the bill of costs and the notice of taxation dated 11th June 2025 were served by electronic mail on 3rd June 2025 on the defendant's advocates, Wandai Matheka and Company Advocates, at the same email address appearing on the defence pleadings and the present application; the advocates failed to attend the taxation on 14th July 2025 and the bill was taxed ex parte, with the taxing master considering each item and taxing off some amounts. After hearing submissions on 2nd February 2026, Mwangi Njoroge J held that the application was not a reference on costs but sought to set aside a Deputy Registrar's orders, and such applications ordinarily belong before the officer who made the ruling. Treating the placement before the judge as an inadvertent administrative mishap, the court declined to strike out the application and instead ordered that it be placed before the current Deputy Registrar of the court for hearing and determination. No costs order was made.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the application dated 22nd August 2025 is properly before the judge, being an application to set aside a ruling and taxation by a Deputy Registrar

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application to set aside the taxation was properly placed before the judge

Holding

It was not; the application was directed to the wrong forum and should be placed before the Deputy Registrar

Reasoning

The court held that the application, though not a reference on costs, sought setting aside of orders made by a Deputy Registrar. Such applications ordinarily go back to the officer who made the ruling. Since the matter was handled as a taxation, the taxing master should determine whether there was sufficient evidence of service. The court treated the placement before it as an inadvertent administrative mishap and, rather than striking out the application, referred it to the Deputy Registrar.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to set aside a Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling ought to be placed before the judicial officer who made the ruling, not before the judge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 22/8/2026 shall be placed before the current Deputy Registrar of this court for hearing and determination

The bench

#

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

MN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to direct proper placement of applications (no specific provision cited)

Relief refused

#

Direct setting aside of the ruling and taxation of the bill of costs delivered on 18th August 2025 and leave to defend the bill of costs dated 3rd June 2025

The application was not properly before the judge; it sought to set aside a Deputy Registrar's ruling and should be reconsidered by the taxing master / Deputy Registrar

p. 2

Costs

No order as to costs made

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.

Consequently, this court orders that the application dated 22/8/2026 shall be placed before the current Deputy Registrar of this court for hearing and determination.
p. 2Final orders - referral to Deputy Registrar
The application is not a by any stretch of imagination a reference regarding costs. It seeks the setting aside orders made by a Deputy Registrar.
p. 2Characterisation of the application
rather than strike out the application I find that it should be placed before the Deputy Registrar for her action
p. 2Disposition in lieu of striking out

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the application as dated 22nd August 2025 in the opening paragraphs but the final order refers to 'the application dated 22/8/2026', an apparent date inconsistency

minor

The judgment is dated 28th April 2026 yet records that submissions were heard on 2nd February 2026 and concerns a taxation of August 2025; the chronology as printed contains the 2026 date discrepancy noted above

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lexo Energy Limited v Nyanya (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2575/eng@2026-04-28

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