' REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HCCCMISC.E073/2025
DAVID MUYUNDO & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES..........................ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SPORTS KENYA……………………………………………………....CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant has filed Chamber Summons application (the Application) dated 28 th January 2025 under Rule 11 (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law. He is seeking the following orders:
That this Honourable Court be please to set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer as contained in the ruling dated and delivered on 26 th September 2024 in respect to the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to tax the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 afresh or, in the alternative, remit the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 for taxation afresh before a different Taxing Officer.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue such other or further ordrs(s) it may deem fair, just and appropriate in the circumstances.
That the costs of this Application be provided for.
The Application is supported by grounds found on the face of it and in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Applicant on 28 th February 2025.
In sum the Applicant states that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself on item 1 of the Advocates/Client Bill of Costs in failing to apply Rule 11 (2) (a) of the Advocates Remuneration Order that provides that the advocates costs be increased by one half of the party and party costs and that the Taxing Officer failed to include 16% Value Added Tax (VAT) in taxing the Bill of costs dated 26 th October 2022 despite the same having been sought.
It is further claimed that the delay in filing the Reference was occasioned by the failure of the Taxing Officer to upload the ruling in the CTS as soon as the Ruling was delivered until 17 th January 2025 when the Ruling was available on CTS.
The Application was not opposed by the Respondent. The record shows that the Respondent was served with the Application but no reply was filed and there was no court attendance by the Respondent.
This Court directed parties to file brief submissions. I have read the submissions filed by the Applicant dated 26 th May 2025. In sum, the Applicant has submitted that the Taxing Officer erred in principle and law by failing to address his mind on increasing the advocate-client bill by 50% and to provide for VAT. The Applicant relied on M M Kimuli & Co Advocates v Brinks Security Services Limited [2024] KEELRC 1011 (KLR) and Spire Bank Ltd v Mamicha & Co. Advocates & another (2020) eKLR on the issue of VAT and on Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others Ex Parte Muchiri W. Njuguna & 2 others (2006) eKLR where the court stated that:
“The Court cannot interfere with the Taxing Officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based in an erroneous principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an interference that it was based on an error of principle.”
I have considered this matter. I am alive to the above principle that this court cannot interfere with the decision of the Taxing Officer unless the above decision is based on an error of principle of the award is manifestly excessive.
I have considered the grounds in support of this application. I have read Schedule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and I have noted that under paragraph 10 B on Clients and Advocates the Party and Party Costs shall be increased by 50% in respect of Advocate-Client costs. The ruling of the Taxing Officer is clear that no such increment was done in respect of Client-Advocate Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022.
I have also noted that no 16% VAT was included in the taxed amount as required. I have considered the arguments by the Applicant and I agree with him that this is justified in interfering with the decision of the Taxing Officer for basing his decision on an erroneous principle. Consequently, I am persuaded to allow the Chamber Summons dated 28 th January 2025, which I hereby do in the following terms:
The Taxing Officer’s decision contained in the Ruling dated and delivered on 26 th September 2024 in respect of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 is hereby set aside.
The Advocates/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 shall be taxed afresh before a different Taxing Officer.
Costs shall be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.
Orders shall issue accordingly.
'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HCCCMISC.E073/2025
DAVID MUYUNDO & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES..........................ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SPORTS KENYA……………………………………………………....CLIENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant has filed Chamber Summons application (the Application) dated 28 th January 2025 under Rule 11 (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law. He is seeking the following orders:
That this Honourable Court be please to set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer as contained in the ruling dated and delivered on 26 th September 2024 in respect to the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to tax the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 afresh or, in the alternative, remit the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 for taxation afresh before a different Taxing Officer.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue such other or further ordrs(s) it may deem fair, just and appropriate in the circumstances.
That the costs of this Application be provided for.
The Application is supported by grounds found on the face of it and in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Applicant on 28 th February 2025.
In sum the Applicant states that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself on item 1 of the Advocates/Client Bill of Costs in failing to apply Rule 11 (2) (a) of the Advocates Remuneration Order that provides that the advocates costs be increased by one half of the party and party costs and that the Taxing Officer failed to include 16% Value Added Tax (VAT) in taxing the Bill of costs dated 26 th October 2022 despite the same having been sought.
It is further claimed that the delay in filing the Reference was occasioned by the failure of the Taxing Officer to upload the ruling in the CTS as soon as the Ruling was delivered until 17 th January 2025 when the Ruling was available on CTS.
The Application was not opposed by the Respondent. The record shows that the Respondent was served with the Application but no reply was filed and there was no court attendance by the Respondent.
This Court directed parties to file brief submissions. I have read the submissions filed by the Applicant dated 26 th May 2025. In sum, the Applicant has submitted that the Taxing Officer erred in principle and law by failing to address his mind on increasing the advocate-client bill by 50% and to provide for VAT. The Applicant relied on M M Kimuli & Co Advocates v Brinks Security Services Limited [2024] KEELRC 1011 (KLR) and Spire Bank Ltd v Mamicha & Co. Advocates & another (2020) eKLR on the issue of VAT and on Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others Ex Parte Muchiri W. Njuguna & 2 others (2006) eKLR where the court stated that:
“The Court cannot interfere with the Taxing Officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based in an erroneous principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an interference that it was based on an error of principle.”
I have considered this matter. I am alive to the above principle that this court cannot interfere with the decision of the Taxing Officer unless the above decision is based on an error of principle of the award is manifestly excessive.
I have considered the grounds in support of this application. I have read Schedule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and I have noted that under paragraph 10 B on Clients and Advocates the Party and Party Costs shall be increased by 50% in respect of Advocate-Client costs. The ruling of the Taxing Officer is clear that no such increment was done in respect of Client-Advocate Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022.
I have also noted that no 16% VAT was included in the taxed amount as required. I have considered the arguments by the Applicant and I agree with him that this is justified in interfering with the decision of the Taxing Officer for basing his decision on an erroneous principle. Consequently, I am persuaded to allow the Chamber Summons dated 28 th January 2025, which I hereby do in the following terms:
The Taxing Officer’s decision contained in the Ruling dated and delivered on 26 th September 2024 in respect of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 is hereby set aside.
The Advocates/Client Bill of Costs dated 26 th October 2022 shall be taxed afresh before a different Taxing Officer.
Costs shall be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.
Orders shall issue accordingly.
'