This is reference by the Appellant from the ruling of the Deputy Registrar dated 30th September 2022. The gravamen of the reference is the taxing officer concluded that the value of the subject matter could not be ascertained from the pleadings or judgment as required by established principles in many cases among them Peter Muthoka and another v Ochieng and Others [2019] eJLR.
I have heard the parties and I hold that the value of the subject matter was clearly ascertained from Paragraph. 2 of the
Judgment. In any case subject matter of the tax appeal is assessment and collection of taxes which is a finite an ascertainable figure. Once the appeal was dismissed, the Appellant could not collect what it set out to claim in the assessment that led to these proceedings. Had the appeal succeeded the Appellant would have collected a specific sum of money. That is the subject matter from which the value is determined. The Deputy Registrar erred in holding that the value of the subject matter could not be so ascertained from the judgment.
As regards the Respondents argument that it is a public body and the court must be cognizant of the use of tax payer funds, I hold that once the court imposes costs, they are determined in a clear and predictable manner as prescribed by the Advocates Remuneration Order which does not discriminate against litigants. The Respondent, Kenya Revenue Authority, is treated like any other litigant where costs are imposed and there is nothing unfair or against public policy about costs being assessed in the matter determined by the law.
The ruling of the Deputy Registrar is therefore set aside. I order that the Bill of Costs filed herein be taxed afresh in accordance with the directions herein before any another Deputy Registrar other than Hon. Nyakundi.
The matter shall be mentioned on 18.04.2023 before the Deputy Registrar for directions on the taxation.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30th day of MARCH 2023
D. S. MAJANJA
JUDGE