'1. The Applicant has moved this Court by way of a Reference challenging the taxation of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 30th April 2025 in Keroka PMCC No. E098 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.
2. The Application is supported by the affidavits of Lydia Ongwacho sworn on 16th and 27th October 2025 together with the annexures thereto. The Respondent opposes the Application through the Replying Affidavit sworn by Gogi Dorah on 29th October 2025. The parties filed written submissions which I have considered.
Background
3. The Respondent filed a Bill of Costs dated 30th April 2025. The Applicant filed a written opposition to the Bill of Costs through the document titled Defendant’s Response to the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2023.
4. After the taxing officer delivered his ruling on 15th October 2025, the Applicant duly lodged a Notice of Objection dated 16th October 2025 specifying the items contested. The taxing officer’s ruling, as annexed to the Applicant’s further affidavit, states that the Bill was “unopposed” and proceeds to tax it as drawn. That conclusion forms the basis of this Reference.
Analysis and Determination
5. I have considered the reference in light of the pleadings on record and the written submissions filed on behalf of both parties.
6. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order sets out the procedure for objecting to taxation. An aggrieved party must issue a written notice to the taxing officer within fourteen days, specifying the items objected to. The taxing officer is then required to give reasons for the taxation on those items. Only after receiving those reasons may the objector file a reference before a judge, setting out the grounds of objection.
7. This is a mandatory statutory sequence. A judge cannot interrogate or review a taxation before reasons are furnished, for the judge’s supervisory jurisdiction must be anchored on the rationale applied by the taxing officer.
8. I have examined the material placed before the Court, and it is clear that the Bill of Costs was opposed. A written objection had been filed before the taxing officer, and a Notice of Objection followed immediately after the ruling. The finding by the taxing officer that the Bill was unopposed was therefore erroneous. I so find.
9. The handwritten ruling of the taxing officer records that the Bill was “unopposed.” That statement is inconsistent with the record. It demonstrates that the taxing officer did not consider the written objection that was on file. A taxation premised on an incorrect factual assumption, namely that there was no opposition, amounts to a failure to consider relevant material and is a misdirection. I therefore find that the taxing officer did not consider the objection.
10. The Applicant issued a Notice of Objection in compliance with Paragraph 11(1). The taxing officer’s ruling does not provide itemised reasons but instead gives a general conclusion grounded on the erroneous belief that the Bill was unopposed. Given that the ruling itself purports to give the reasons for the taxation, and that those reasons are before this Court, the Reference is properly anchored within Paragraph 11(2). The Court is therefore properly seized of the matter.
11. The principles governing a judge’s intervention are settled. The Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92 held that a judge should not interfere with the taxing officer’s discretion unless it is shown that the officer acted on an error of principle, or that the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
12. In the present case, the taxing officer proceeded on the wrong factual premise that the Bill was unopposed. This was a material misdirection and a clear error of principle. It deprived the Applicant of the right to have the contested items evaluated on merit. A taxation conducted in disregard of the objection cannot stand. The threshold for judicial interference has therefore been 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 PMCC E098 of 2022 is hereby set aside.
2) The Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 30th 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 affidavits of Lydia Ongwacho sworn on 16th and 27th October 2025 together with the annexures thereto. The Respondent opposes the Application through the Replying Affidavit sworn by Gogi Dorah on 29th October 2025. The parties filed written submissions which I have considered.
Background
3. The Respondent filed a Bill of Costs dated 30th April 2025. The Applicant filed a written opposition to the Bill of Costs through the document titled Defendant’s Response to the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs dated 19th April 2023.
4. After the taxing officer delivered his ruling on 15th October 2025, the Applicant duly lodged a Notice of Objection dated 16th October 2025 specifying the items contested. The taxing officer’s ruling, as annexed to the Applicant’s further affidavit, states that the Bill was “unopposed” and proceeds to tax it as drawn. That conclusion forms the basis of this Reference.
Analysis and Determination
5. I have considered the reference in light of the pleadings on record and the written submissions filed on behalf of both parties.
6. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order sets out the procedure for objecting to taxation. An aggrieved party must issue a written notice to the taxing officer within fourteen days, specifying the items objected to. The taxing officer is then required to give reasons for the taxation on those items. Only after receiving those reasons may the objector file a reference before a judge, setting out the grounds of objection.
7. This is a mandatory statutory sequence. A judge cannot interrogate or review a taxation before reasons are furnished, for the judge’s supervisory jurisdiction must be anchored on the rationale applied by the taxing officer.
8. I have examined the material placed before the Court, and it is clear that the Bill of Costs was opposed. A written objection had been filed before the taxing officer, and a Notice of Objection followed immediately after the ruling. The finding by the taxing officer that the Bill was unopposed was therefore erroneous. I so find.
9. The handwritten ruling of the taxing officer records that the Bill was “unopposed.” That statement is inconsistent with the record. It demonstrates that the taxing officer did not consider the written objection that was on file. A taxation premised on an incorrect factual assumption, namely that there was no opposition, amounts to a failure to consider relevant material and is a misdirection. I therefore find that the taxing officer did not consider the objection.
10. The Applicant issued a Notice of Objection in compliance with Paragraph 11(1). The taxing officer’s ruling does not provide itemised reasons but instead gives a general conclusion grounded on the erroneous belief that the Bill was unopposed. Given that the ruling itself purports to give the reasons for the taxation, and that those reasons are before this Court, the Reference is properly anchored within Paragraph 11(2). The Court is therefore properly seized of the matter.
11. The principles governing a judge’s intervention are settled. The Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92 held that a judge should not interfere with the taxing officer’s discretion unless it is shown that the officer acted on an error of principle, or that the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
12. In the present case, the taxing officer proceeded on the wrong factual premise that the Bill was unopposed. This was a material misdirection and a clear error of principle. It deprived the Applicant of the right to have the contested items evaluated on merit. A taxation conducted in disregard of the objection cannot stand. The threshold for judicial interference has therefore been 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 PMCC E098 of 2022 is hereby set aside.
2) The Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 30th 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
'