Victonell Academy Limited v Kariuki t/a Direct 'O’ Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1629 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut an auctioneer's taxed costs but confirmed debtors cannot dodge liability by re-arguing it during a costs appeal.
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 Appellant was liable to pay the Respondent/Auctioneer's costs
- 2.Whether an aggrieved party under the Auctioneers Rules must give 14 days' notice to the Taxing Officer before appealing (as under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order)
- 3.Whether items not provided for under the 4th Schedule of the Auctioneers Rules (investigation and proclamation fees) were properly allowed
- 4.Whether the taxed costs ought to have been halved under paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule given that sale was stayed
- 5.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in failing to consider the Appellant's Replying Affidavit and the Respondent's VAT compliance
Key legal issues
#Liability of the judgment debtor for the Auctioneer's costs
The Appellant is liable, having been so ordered in a Ruling by Hon. David Nderitu J that was not appealed
The Ruling in Nakuru E&LRC Appeal No. E023 of 2023 directed the Appellant to pay the Auctioneer's costs for work done, to be agreed or assessed. The Bill was taxed pursuant to that order. A party aggrieved by that Ruling should have appealed to the Court of Appeal; liability cannot be re-litigated before a Judge of cognate jurisdiction.
Notice to the Taxing Officer as a condition of appeal/reference
No such requirement exists under the Auctioneers Rules; the Respondent imported the rule from the Advocates Remuneration Order
The Court distinguished an appeal under Rule 55para 4 and para 5 of the Auctioneers Rules from a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The 14-day notice requirement applies only to advocates' bills, not auctioneers' bills.
Items not provided for under the 4th Schedule Part 2
Investigation (Kshs. 5,000) and proclamation fees (Kshs. 4,032) were wrongly allowed and are removed
The 4th Schedule Part 2 makes no provision for investigation or fees on proclamation, so the Taxing Officer erred in allowing those items totalling Kshs. 9,032. The item pleaded as commission was treated as fees on attachment under paragraph 4 and left undisturbed.
Halving of costs where sale is stayed
Rejected; paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule applies only to fees the Auctioneer would have been entitled to after sale
The taxed Bill was for work done under a court order, not post-sale entitlement, so the halving provision does not apply.
Legal principles established
#- There is no requirement under the Auctioneers Rules for a party dissatisfied with taxed items to issue 14 days' notice to the Taxing Officer; that requirement belongs to the Advocates Remuneration Order
- A party dissatisfied with a Ruling imposing liability for Auctioneer's costs must appeal to the Court of Appeal, not challenge liability before a Judge of cognate jurisdiction
- Where sale has not taken place, the taxed Bill represents fees for work done, not fees the Auctioneer would have been entitled to after sale, so the halving provision in paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule does not apply
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal filed through the Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025 is partly allowed
- 2.The amount allowed on taxation is varied, and costs to the Respondent granted at Kshs. 65,317.90
- 3.Judgment is entered in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 65,317.90
- 4.No order on the costs
- 5.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of the Ruling
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer (Auctioneer's Bill of Costs taxed 3rd April 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 55[4] and [5] of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997
Relief refused
#Prayer that the Appellant was not liable to pay the Auctioneer's costs
Liability was imposed by a Ruling of the Court (Hon. David Nderitu J) which was never appealed to the Court of Appeal
Prayer that the Bill of Costs be reduced by half under paragraph 7 of the 4th Schedule
The paragraph refers to fees after sale; the taxed Bill represents fees for work done as ordered by the Court
Objection based on the Respondent's VAT compliance
Not argued at taxation and cannot be raised on appeal; registration doubts should be pursued with KRA and the Auctioneers Licensing Board
Costs
No order on the costs of this Appeal (each party to bear own costs implicitly; order states 'No order on the costs.')
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.
In sum, it is ordered: a. The Appeal filed through the Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025 is partly allowed. b. The amount allowed on taxation is varied, and costs to the Respondent granted at Kshs. 65,317.90.
The award of Kshs. 74,349.90 to the Respondent by the Taxing Oficer, as Auctioneer’s costs is reviewed and replaced with an order awarding the Respondent costs at Kshs. 65,317.
The Court has not found any requirement under the Auctioneers Rules , for party dissatisfied with taxed items, to issue notice to the Taxing Oficer.
If the Appellant was dissatisfied with the Ruling, it should have appealed to the Court of Appeal, and not seek to challenge liability to pay costs, before a Judge of cognate jurisdiction.
There is no provision for investigation, which was granted at Kshs. 5,000. There is no provision for fees on proclamation, allowed at Kshs. 4,032.
Issues in the judgment
#The taxed amount is stated inconsistently: Kshs. 76,349 at the opening, but Kshs. 74,349.90 in the review paragraph
The varied award figure is inconsistent between the reasoning (Kshs. 65,317) and the final orders (Kshs. 65,317.90)
Subtraction does not reconcile: the two disallowed items total Kshs. 9,032, which would not produce Kshs. 65,317(.90) from either stated taxed figure
The court designation is ambiguous: the appeal is described as 'Nakuru E&LRC Appeal' (Employment and Labour Relations Court) yet the record header context suggests the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Victonell Academy Limited v Kariuki t/a Direct 'O’ Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru E&LRC Appeal (Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2025, under Rule 55[4] and [5] of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1629/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.