1. This ruling concerns a reference from taxation arising from the decision of the Taxing Officer delivered on 05th December 2024 in Nyamira HCCCMISC E051 of 2024, by which the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 29th October 2024 was taxed as drawn in the sum of KES. 607,600.
2. The reference is brought by way of a Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 and is founded on paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The Applicant seeks the following orders:
1) That the ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 5th December 2024 in Nyamira High Court Miscellaneous Application No. E051 of 2024 be set aside.
2) That the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 29th October 2024 be remitted for taxation afresh.
3) That the costs of the reference be provided for
3. The Chamber Summons is supported by the affidavit of Mary Moige Gesora sworn on 31st July 2025. It is opposed through the replying affidavit of Gladys N. Nyamwega sworn on 23rd October 2025. The Court has also considered the Applicant’s written submissions dated 17th November 2025 and the authorities cited by the parties.
4. The Applicant challenges the ruling of the Taxing Officer on the basis that, notwithstanding the filing of grounds of opposition dated 29th October 2024, the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs was treated as unopposed; that the bill was taxed as drawn without being taxed item by item; that the applicable provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order were not identified; and that no reasons were given for the exercise of discretion.
5. The Respondent’s case, as set out in the replying affidavit sworn is that the Applicant failed to attend taxation despite notice; that the Bill of Costs was properly drawn and taxed to scale; and that no error of principle has been demonstrated to justify interference with the discretion of the Taxing Officer.
6. I have considered the application, the affidavits, the submissions, and the authorities relied upon and the issue that arises for determination is whether the reference is merited.
7. The principles governing interference with a taxation are settled. In Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162, the Court of Appeal held that a Judge may interfere with taxation where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle, failed to take into account relevant factors, took into account irrelevant factors, or arrived at a result that is manifestly unjust.
8. In Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92, the Court held that a taxing officer must give reasons for the decision reached on taxation and that the absence of reasons constitutes an error of principle. In Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR, the Court reiterated that failure to exercise discretion judicially invites intervention by the High Court.
9. Turning to the present reference, the ruling delivered on 05th December 2024 states that the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs “has not been opposed” and is “taxed as drawn.” That conclusion is however inconsistent with the record placed before this Court, which shows that the Applicant had filed grounds of opposition dated 29th October 2024 challenging the Bill of Costs. The Taxing Officer therefore proceeded on a misapprehension of fact.
10. That misapprehension informed the approach taken by the Taxing Officer and resulted in the Bill of Costs being allowed wholesale without interrogation. A taxing officer is under a duty to tax a bill judicially. Even where a bill is uncontested, the officer must apply the relevant schedule, tax the bill item by item, and give reasons demonstrating how discretion has been exercised.
11. In the present case, the impugned ruling does not identify the applicable provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order, does not demonstrate that the Bill of Costs was taxed item by item, and does not disclose any reasons for the sums allowed. That approach is contrary to the dictates of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (supra) and constitutes an error of principle.
12. I am therefore satisfied that the Taxing Officer acted on wrong principles and failed to exercise discretion judicially. The reference is merited.
13. In the result, the Court makes the following orders:
1) The ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 05th December 2024 in Nyamira HCCCMISC. E051 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
2) The Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 29th October 2024 is remitted for taxation afresh
3) Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference.
2. The reference is brought by way of a Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2025 and is founded on paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The Applicant seeks the following orders:
1) That the ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 5th December 2024 in Nyamira High Court Miscellaneous Application No. E051 of 2024 be set aside.
2) That the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 29th October 2024 be remitted for taxation afresh.
3) That the costs of the reference be provided for
3. The Chamber Summons is supported by the affidavit of Mary Moige Gesora sworn on 31st July 2025. It is opposed through the replying affidavit of Gladys N. Nyamwega sworn on 23rd October 2025. The Court has also considered the Applicant’s written submissions dated 17th November 2025 and the authorities cited by the parties.
4. The Applicant challenges the ruling of the Taxing Officer on the basis that, notwithstanding the filing of grounds of opposition dated 29th October 2024, the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs was treated as unopposed; that the bill was taxed as drawn without being taxed item by item; that the applicable provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order were not identified; and that no reasons were given for the exercise of discretion.
5. The Respondent’s case, as set out in the replying affidavit sworn is that the Applicant failed to attend taxation despite notice; that the Bill of Costs was properly drawn and taxed to scale; and that no error of principle has been demonstrated to justify interference with the discretion of the Taxing Officer.
6. I have considered the application, the affidavits, the submissions, and the authorities relied upon and the issue that arises for determination is whether the reference is merited.
7. The principles governing interference with a taxation are settled. In Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162, the Court of Appeal held that a Judge may interfere with taxation where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle, failed to take into account relevant factors, took into account irrelevant factors, or arrived at a result that is manifestly unjust.
8. In Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92, the Court held that a taxing officer must give reasons for the decision reached on taxation and that the absence of reasons constitutes an error of principle. In Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR, the Court reiterated that failure to exercise discretion judicially invites intervention by the High Court.
9. Turning to the present reference, the ruling delivered on 05th December 2024 states that the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs “has not been opposed” and is “taxed as drawn.” That conclusion is however inconsistent with the record placed before this Court, which shows that the Applicant had filed grounds of opposition dated 29th October 2024 challenging the Bill of Costs. The Taxing Officer therefore proceeded on a misapprehension of fact.
10. That misapprehension informed the approach taken by the Taxing Officer and resulted in the Bill of Costs being allowed wholesale without interrogation. A taxing officer is under a duty to tax a bill judicially. Even where a bill is uncontested, the officer must apply the relevant schedule, tax the bill item by item, and give reasons demonstrating how discretion has been exercised.
11. In the present case, the impugned ruling does not identify the applicable provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order, does not demonstrate that the Bill of Costs was taxed item by item, and does not disclose any reasons for the sums allowed. That approach is contrary to the dictates of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (supra) and constitutes an error of principle.
12. I am therefore satisfied that the Taxing Officer acted on wrong principles and failed to exercise discretion judicially. The reference is merited.
13. In the result, the Court makes the following orders:
1) The ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 05th December 2024 in Nyamira HCCCMISC. E051 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
2) The Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 29th October 2024 is remitted for taxation afresh
3) Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference.