1. Before this Court is Chambers Summons brought under Certificate of Urgency expressed under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. The Applicants seeks the following orders:
a. THAT this Honorable Court be pleased to certify this matter urgent and the same be heard ex parte in the first instance.
b. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honorable Court be pleased to order stay of execution of the assessed costs of 18/08/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY
KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA
KHASOHA pending hearing of this application inter-partes.
c. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honorable Court be pleased to order stay of execution of the assessed costs of 18/08/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY
KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA
KHASOHA pending hearing of this Application.
d. THAT the decision of the taxing master delivered on 18/08/2026 be set aside and be taxed afresh by this Honourable Court.
e. THAT costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent.
2. The application is based on the following grounds:
a. THAT on 18/8/2026 the court in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023
ANTHONY KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS-
LINDA KHASOHA delivered its Ruling on the party & party bill of costs dated 27/2/2026 and 30 days stay of execution was granted.
b. THAT the award is too excessive in the circumstances as the said costs as itemized in the notice of Objection were not assessed according to the provisions of the Advocates' Remuneration Order.
c. THAT there is no legal basis for the award
d. THAT the award is punitive in nature and not compensatory.
e. THAT the Applicants are apprehensive that the Respondent will execute once the 30 days stay lapse causing the Applicants to incur substantial loss and rendering this Application nugatory.
f. THAT if the application is not certified urgent and heard on priority basis the whole Reference will be rendered nugatory as the Respondent shall proceed with execution against the Applicants upon the lapse of 30 days.
3. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of one Barbara
Ngome who states as follows:-
a. THAT I am an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing as such in the firm name and style of M/S KRK ADVOCATES LLP and having the conduct of this matter for and on behalf of the Applicants hence I am competent and duly authorized to swear this affidavit.
b. THAT I am aware that ruling on the Respondent's costs dated 27/2/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA KHASOHA was
delivered on 18/08/2026 in the sum of Kshs 223,835/=
c. THAT the Respondent prepared Bill of costs dated 18/8/2026 which was not opposed by the Applicant since the Applicants' counsel were neither served with the said Bill nor the taxation notice
d. THAT the Applicants only found out the matter was listed for Ruling on Bill of Costs when it was called out by the Honourable Magistrate.
e. THAT the taxing officer orally delivered the ruling taxing the costs at Kshs. 223,835/= and the said copy of Ruling is yet to be uploaded on the e-filing portal.
f. THAT the counsel for Respondent acted in bad faith when they failed to serve the Applicants with the said Bill and Notices despite having knowledge of the Applicants' counsel official email address, being info@dac-law.co.ke
g. THAT the applicant was aggrieved with the said ruling and filed a notice of objection which is yet to be responded to by the taxing officer.
h. THAT that the taxing officer failed to tax the costs as prescribed and provided by the law under Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration)
Order 2014
i. THAT I know as of my own knowledge that the learned taxing officer made serious errors in principle in taxing the said Bill of Costs and thereby arrived at the wrong decision.
j. THAT the said taxation is hence irregular and the decision of the learned taxing officer ought to be set aside and the bill taxed afresh.
k. THAT I am further aware that the Applicants were granted 30 days stay of execution which will soon lapse and they are apprehensive that the Respondent will execute on the said costs causing them to incur substantial loss and rendering this Application nugatory.
Decision
4. The application be served upon the Respondent for her to file a response to the reference within 7 days from today’s date.
5. The reference be canvassed by way of written submissions, in which the Applicants have a right to begin by filing their submissions within 10 days from the date of being served with the response.
6. Thereafter, the Respondent shall be at liberty to file her written submissions within 7 days.
7. The decision for the reference be and is hereby scheduled on 30th day of September 2026 for judgment.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026.
a. THAT this Honorable Court be pleased to certify this matter urgent and the same be heard ex parte in the first instance.
b. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honorable Court be pleased to order stay of execution of the assessed costs of 18/08/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY
KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA
KHASOHA pending hearing of this application inter-partes.
c. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honorable Court be pleased to order stay of execution of the assessed costs of 18/08/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY
KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA
KHASOHA pending hearing of this Application.
d. THAT the decision of the taxing master delivered on 18/08/2026 be set aside and be taxed afresh by this Honourable Court.
e. THAT costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent.
2. The application is based on the following grounds:
a. THAT on 18/8/2026 the court in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023
ANTHONY KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS-
LINDA KHASOHA delivered its Ruling on the party & party bill of costs dated 27/2/2026 and 30 days stay of execution was granted.
b. THAT the award is too excessive in the circumstances as the said costs as itemized in the notice of Objection were not assessed according to the provisions of the Advocates' Remuneration Order.
c. THAT there is no legal basis for the award
d. THAT the award is punitive in nature and not compensatory.
e. THAT the Applicants are apprehensive that the Respondent will execute once the 30 days stay lapse causing the Applicants to incur substantial loss and rendering this Application nugatory.
f. THAT if the application is not certified urgent and heard on priority basis the whole Reference will be rendered nugatory as the Respondent shall proceed with execution against the Applicants upon the lapse of 30 days.
3. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of one Barbara
Ngome who states as follows:-
a. THAT I am an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing as such in the firm name and style of M/S KRK ADVOCATES LLP and having the conduct of this matter for and on behalf of the Applicants hence I am competent and duly authorized to swear this affidavit.
b. THAT I am aware that ruling on the Respondent's costs dated 27/2/2026 in VIHIGA HCCA E025 OF 2023 ANTHONY KIPKOECH KEMBOI & ABDIBURHAN ANDIKADIR -VERSUS- LINDA KHASOHA was
delivered on 18/08/2026 in the sum of Kshs 223,835/=
c. THAT the Respondent prepared Bill of costs dated 18/8/2026 which was not opposed by the Applicant since the Applicants' counsel were neither served with the said Bill nor the taxation notice
d. THAT the Applicants only found out the matter was listed for Ruling on Bill of Costs when it was called out by the Honourable Magistrate.
e. THAT the taxing officer orally delivered the ruling taxing the costs at Kshs. 223,835/= and the said copy of Ruling is yet to be uploaded on the e-filing portal.
f. THAT the counsel for Respondent acted in bad faith when they failed to serve the Applicants with the said Bill and Notices despite having knowledge of the Applicants' counsel official email address, being info@dac-law.co.ke
g. THAT the applicant was aggrieved with the said ruling and filed a notice of objection which is yet to be responded to by the taxing officer.
h. THAT that the taxing officer failed to tax the costs as prescribed and provided by the law under Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration)
Order 2014
i. THAT I know as of my own knowledge that the learned taxing officer made serious errors in principle in taxing the said Bill of Costs and thereby arrived at the wrong decision.
j. THAT the said taxation is hence irregular and the decision of the learned taxing officer ought to be set aside and the bill taxed afresh.
k. THAT I am further aware that the Applicants were granted 30 days stay of execution which will soon lapse and they are apprehensive that the Respondent will execute on the said costs causing them to incur substantial loss and rendering this Application nugatory.
Decision
4. The application be served upon the Respondent for her to file a response to the reference within 7 days from today’s date.
5. The reference be canvassed by way of written submissions, in which the Applicants have a right to begin by filing their submissions within 10 days from the date of being served with the response.
6. Thereafter, the Respondent shall be at liberty to file her written submissions within 7 days.
7. The decision for the reference be and is hereby scheduled on 30th day of September 2026 for judgment.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026.