Brayan Mwangi t/a Vintage Auctioneers v Proto Energy Limited & Solutions East Africa Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan magistrate's court struck out an auctioneer's Kshs. 794,739 bill, ruling that only the High Court can question an earlier ruling declaring the attachment unlawful.
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 court has jurisdiction to tax the auctioneer's bill of costs as sought
- 2.Whether the application should be entertained given the ruling of 14/7/2026 by Hon. M.S. Kimani, SPM in the substantive suit
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to tax the auctioneer's bill
The court declined jurisdiction, holding that the ruling of 14/7/2026 in the substantive suit had declared the attachment unlawful and the auctioneer not entitled to fees, and the auctioneer's remedy lay in the High Court
The court found that the SPM's ruling of 14/7/2026 quashed the warrants and declared the applicant in that matter not liable for auctioneer's fees. Determining the taxation motion would amount to sitting on appeal over a magistrate's decision, a power reserved to the High Court, Malindi.
Effect of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act
Questions relating to execution of the decree must be determined by the court executing the decree; the auctioneer's best option was to move the High Court regarding the lawfulness of the orders of 14/7/26
The court invoked Section 34 to hold that execution-related questions belong to the executing court. Since the substantive court had already ruled on the lawfulness of the attachment and liability for fees, a separate taxation application could not circumvent that ruling.
Legal principles established
#- All questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by separate suit
- Where proceedings are before a court and there is a dispute on the amount payable to an auctioneer, the court may order the bill be taxed by the Deputy Registrar under Rule 55(2) of the Auctioneers Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The auctioneer's Bill of Costs is struck out
- 2.The defendants' objection to taxation is upheld
- 3.The auctioneer's motion is dismissed
- 4.Each party shall bear own costs of the application
- 5.Leave to appeal granted 30 days of today
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Auctioneers Rules, 1997 Rules 7 & 55 and Legal Notice No. 44 (Amended Auctioneers Rules, 2009); Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Taxation of the auctioneer's Bill of Costs of Kshs. 794,739.66 and issuance of a Certificate of Taxation
The court lacked jurisdiction; the substantive court had declared the attachment unlawful and the auctioneer not liable to fees, and taxing the bill would amount to sitting on appeal over a magistrate's decision
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs of the application.
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.
It is this court's view that this court cannot determine the current application and tax the auctioneer's costs as sought by the applicant. The Bill is struck out
For this court to determine the merits or otherwise of the current motion seeking taxation would in essence be sitting on appeal against the decision of a magistrate. Such appellate power lies in the High Court, Malindi.
This court therefore declines to entertain the auctioneer's application. The defendants’ objection is upheld for those reasons. The auctioneer's motion is dismissed. Each party shall bear own costs of the application. Leave to appeal granted 30days of today.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to an 'Interested Party auctioneer' though no interested party is joined in this application
Replying affidavit sworn by a legal officer for GA Insurance on behalf of both defendants, unexplained
Conflicting attachment dates: 12/6/2026 proclamation in the motion versus 19th and 24th June 2026 in the ruling of 14/7/2026 as summarised
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Brayan Mwangi t/a Vintage Auctioneers v Proto Energy Limited & Solutions East Africa Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Civil Application No. E007 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/945/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.