'1. The Applicant has moved this Court by way of a Reference challenging the taxation of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2025 in Keroka CMCC No. E097 of 2022. The taxation was conducted by Hon. Collins Ombija (SRM), who delivered his ruling on 15th October 2025. The Applicant seeks orders setting aside the taxation and remitting the Bill for fresh taxation. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Gogi Dorah on 29th October 2025 together with annexures DG1 (payment vouchers) and DG2 (disbursement receipts).
2. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Lydia Ongwacho sworn on 16th October 2025 together with the grounds set out therein. The Respondent did not file an affidavit in response before this Court, though the record contains the written opposition that had earlier been filed before the taxing officer. I have considered the material placed before me as well as the parties’ respective submissions on the taxation.
Background
3. The Respondent filed a Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2025. Prior to taxation, the Applicant filed a written objection titled Defendant’s Response to the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, outlining the Respondent’s claimed attendances, service expenses, and drawings, supported by payment vouchers dated 22nd February 2022, 20th April 2022, 22nd April 2022, 23rd May 2022, 13th July 2022, 21st September 2022, 15th March 2023, 21st May 2023, 05th July 2023, 23rd October 2024, 08th January 2025, 29th January 2025, 05th March 2025, 30th April 2025 and 15th October 2025, which are annexed in DG1 and DG2
4. Following delivery of the taxing officer’s ruling on 15th October 2025, the Applicant issued a Notice of Objection dated 16th October 2025, identifying the specific items contested and requesting reasons in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The taxing officer’s ruling indicates that the Bill was taxed as drawn. The Applicant contends that the taxing officer proceeded on the erroneous footing that there was no opposition, notwithstanding the written objection on record. This forms the basis of the present Reference. The replying affidavit at paragraph 10 asserts that the application is an abuse of the court process and refers to the taxing officer’s alleged proper application of the remuneration order, echoing the Respondent’s reliance on Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162 .
Analysis and Determination
5. I have considered the Reference in light of the pleadings, the procedural history of the taxation, the governing law and the parties’ submissions.
6. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order prescribes the procedure for challenging a taxation. An aggrieved party must issue a written notice of objection within fourteen days, identifying the items contested, whereupon the taxing officer is required to furnish reasons. Only after receipt of those reasons may a Reference be lodged before a judge. The Respondent submits that the notice of objection did not identify any error of principle.
7. This sequence is not optional; it is the statutory framework that anchors the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The judge’s task is to interrogate the reasons supplied by the taxing officer and determine whether the taxation discloses an error of principle.
8. Upon reviewing the record, it is plain that the Respondent’s Bill of Costs was opposed. The Applicant had filed a comprehensive written objection before the taxing officer. The Respondent argues that the bill was properly taxed but does not dispute that the applicant’s objection was filed. The subsequent Notice of Objection was also issued promptly after delivery of the ruling. The taxing officer’s indication that the Bill was unopposed is therefore inconsistent with the procedural history. I so find.
9. The taxing officer’s notation that the Bill was unopposed demonstrates that he did not consider the written objection that was on record. Although the Respondent has produced vouchers and disbursement receipts in DG1 and DG2, these do not cure the taxing officer’s failure to address the specific contested items raised in the applicant’s objections.
10. The Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant has not satisfied the stay threshold is misplaced for the reason that this reference is not a stay application. A taxation premised on an incorrect factual assumption, namely that there was no opposition, amounts to a failure to take into account relevant material. This constitutes a misdirection sufficient to vitiate the taxation.
11. The Applicant duly complied with Paragraph 11(1) by issuing a Notice of Objection. The taxing officer’s ruling, which taxed the Bill as drawn, does not address the contested items nor provide itemised reasons. As the ruling purports to contain the reasons for taxation, the Reference is properly founded under Paragraph 11(2), and the Court is properly seized of the matter.
12. The principles guiding judicial interference with taxation are settled. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, a judge should not interfere unless the taxing officer has acted on an error of principle or the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
13. In the present case, the taxing officer proceeded on an erroneous factual premise that the Bill was unopposed. That misdirection is an error of principle. It deprived the Applicant of the substantive right to have the contested items considered on merit. A taxation conducted on such a flawed foundation cannot stand. The threshold for judicial intervention is therefore met.
Disposition
13. For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
1) The taxation ruling delivered on 15th October 2025 by Hon. Collins Ombija (SRM) in Keroka CMCC No. E097 of 2022 is hereby set aside.
2) The Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2025 is hereby remitted for taxation afresh
3) The costs of this Reference shall abide the outcome of the fresh taxation.
4) This being a miscellaneous file, it is closed
'
2. The Application is supported by the affidavit of Lydia Ongwacho sworn on 16th October 2025 together with the grounds set out therein. The Respondent did not file an affidavit in response before this Court, though the record contains the written opposition that had earlier been filed before the taxing officer. I have considered the material placed before me as well as the parties’ respective submissions on the taxation.
Background
3. The Respondent filed a Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2025. Prior to taxation, the Applicant filed a written objection titled Defendant’s Response to the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, outlining the Respondent’s claimed attendances, service expenses, and drawings, supported by payment vouchers dated 22nd February 2022, 20th April 2022, 22nd April 2022, 23rd May 2022, 13th July 2022, 21st September 2022, 15th March 2023, 21st May 2023, 05th July 2023, 23rd October 2024, 08th January 2025, 29th January 2025, 05th March 2025, 30th April 2025 and 15th October 2025, which are annexed in DG1 and DG2
4. Following delivery of the taxing officer’s ruling on 15th October 2025, the Applicant issued a Notice of Objection dated 16th October 2025, identifying the specific items contested and requesting reasons in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The taxing officer’s ruling indicates that the Bill was taxed as drawn. The Applicant contends that the taxing officer proceeded on the erroneous footing that there was no opposition, notwithstanding the written objection on record. This forms the basis of the present Reference. The replying affidavit at paragraph 10 asserts that the application is an abuse of the court process and refers to the taxing officer’s alleged proper application of the remuneration order, echoing the Respondent’s reliance on Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162 .
Analysis and Determination
5. I have considered the Reference in light of the pleadings, the procedural history of the taxation, the governing law and the parties’ submissions.
6. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order prescribes the procedure for challenging a taxation. An aggrieved party must issue a written notice of objection within fourteen days, identifying the items contested, whereupon the taxing officer is required to furnish reasons. Only after receipt of those reasons may a Reference be lodged before a judge. The Respondent submits that the notice of objection did not identify any error of principle.
7. This sequence is not optional; it is the statutory framework that anchors the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The judge’s task is to interrogate the reasons supplied by the taxing officer and determine whether the taxation discloses an error of principle.
8. Upon reviewing the record, it is plain that the Respondent’s Bill of Costs was opposed. The Applicant had filed a comprehensive written objection before the taxing officer. The Respondent argues that the bill was properly taxed but does not dispute that the applicant’s objection was filed. The subsequent Notice of Objection was also issued promptly after delivery of the ruling. The taxing officer’s indication that the Bill was unopposed is therefore inconsistent with the procedural history. I so find.
9. The taxing officer’s notation that the Bill was unopposed demonstrates that he did not consider the written objection that was on record. Although the Respondent has produced vouchers and disbursement receipts in DG1 and DG2, these do not cure the taxing officer’s failure to address the specific contested items raised in the applicant’s objections.
10. The Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant has not satisfied the stay threshold is misplaced for the reason that this reference is not a stay application. A taxation premised on an incorrect factual assumption, namely that there was no opposition, amounts to a failure to take into account relevant material. This constitutes a misdirection sufficient to vitiate the taxation.
11. The Applicant duly complied with Paragraph 11(1) by issuing a Notice of Objection. The taxing officer’s ruling, which taxed the Bill as drawn, does not address the contested items nor provide itemised reasons. As the ruling purports to contain the reasons for taxation, the Reference is properly founded under Paragraph 11(2), and the Court is properly seized of the matter.
12. The principles guiding judicial interference with taxation are settled. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, a judge should not interfere unless the taxing officer has acted on an error of principle or the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
13. In the present case, the taxing officer proceeded on an erroneous factual premise that the Bill was unopposed. That misdirection is an error of principle. It deprived the Applicant of the substantive right to have the contested items considered on merit. A taxation conducted on such a flawed foundation cannot stand. The threshold for judicial intervention is therefore met.
Disposition
13. For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
1) The taxation ruling delivered on 15th October 2025 by Hon. Collins Ombija (SRM) in Keroka CMCC No. E097 of 2022 is hereby set aside.
2) The Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2025 is hereby remitted for taxation afresh
3) The costs of this Reference shall abide the outcome of the fresh taxation.
4) This being a miscellaneous file, it is closed
'