Okuro & 7 others v Onudi (Petition 5 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kisumu dismissed an attempt to revive attachment warrants, confirming only the Court of Appeal can issue warrants for its own taxed costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is an error apparent on the record in the ruling of 29th May 2024 that set aside the warrants of attachment issued on 12th March 2024
- 2.Whether the court should vacate its vacation of the execution and warrants of attachment
- 3.Whether costs awarded by the Court of Appeal in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018 can be executed through warrants issued by this court
Key legal issues
#Whether the ruling of 29th May 2024 contained an error apparent on the record justifying review
The court held there was no error apparent on the record; the ruling had correctly set aside the warrants because the execution sought related to costs awarded by the Court of Appeal
The Applicants argued the court had relied on costs taxed on 30th October 2018, unrelated to the warrants, which concerned costs in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018 per certificate of taxation dated 23rd February 2024 for Kshs 424,410/-. The court reasoned that where costs were awarded by the Court of Appeal, execution through warrants must issue from that court, and the Applicant's own affidavit confirmed this court cannot overturn a Court of Appeal decision. No sufficient basis for review was demonstrated.
Which court has authority to issue warrants of attachment for costs awarded and taxed by the Court of Appeal
The court that awarded the costs - the Court of Appeal - must issue the warrants, not the High Court in the subordinate matter
The court noted that the Applicants' application for review was premised on a certificate of taxation dated 23rd February 2024 amounting to Kshs 424,410/- issued by the Court of Appeal in Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018. Given that those costs were awarded by the Court of Appeal, any warrants of attachment to execute them must be issued by that court. This court therefore had no basis to reinstate warrants it had vacated, and if the Court of Appeal had determined the costs issue, that issue belongs before the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Warrants of attachment in respect of costs taxed under a certificate of taxation issued by the Court of Appeal must be issued by the court that awarded the costs, not the High Court in the underlying suit
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Petitioner dated 24th June 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Review of the ruling of 29th May 2024 setting aside the execution and warrants of attachment issued on 12th March 2024
No grounds presented to warrant reversal of the court's orders; warrants for Court of Appeal costs must issue from the court that awarded those costs
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents
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.
If indeed the matter was determined by the Court of Appeal in relation to costs, the issue of costs should be argued before the Court of Appeal.
If that is the case the warrants must be issued by the Court that awarded the costs. That court is not this particular court.
The outcome is that the application by the Petitioner is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Case file/number of the suit and the review application are not stated in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okuro & 7 others v Onudi (Petition 5 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (application dated 24th June 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2842/eng@2024-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.