I. Introduction
1. The Ruling before this Honourable Court pertains to the Camber Summons application dated 26th June, 2023 by Maria Mnyazi Mwangome, the Defendant/Applicant. It was brought under the provisions of Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
2. Upon service, the application was opposed through filing of Grounds of Opposition dated 3rd September 2025 and a Replying Affidavit dated 15th September, 2025 and sworn by the Respondent Marc Marcel Vereeckе whose contents will be discussed at length later in the ruling.
II. The case by the Applicant
3. The Applicant sought for the following orders:-
a. Spent.
b. That there be a temporary stay of execution of the Ruling and orders made on 28th May, 2025 in ELC No. 17 of 2020 arising from of the Bill of Costs dated 24th October 2024 pending inter party hearing of this application.
c. The Taxation Ruling made by the Learned Taxing Master on the 28th day of May, 2025 which taxed the bill of costs dated 24th October, 2024 as drawn by the Respondent be varied, reviewed and/or set aside.
d. That the order made by the Taxing master awarding the Respondent Kshs. 929,125.00 be set aside and/or varied to reasonable and less award.
e. That costs of this application be in the cause.
4. The application was based upon the grounds, testimonial facts and averments made out under the 16 Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit of ELLY MWAVITA MWANGOME together with annextures marked as “EL – 1 to 4” annexed thereto. The Applicants averred that: -
a) He was the Lawful Attorney of the Applicant herein and hence competent to swear this Affidavit in support of the application herein.
b) The Respondent commenced a civil suit being “ELC case no. 17 of 2021 Marc Marcel Vereecke – Versus - Maria Mnyazi Mwangome & Winnie Mwangoмe” whereby the Honourable Court issue its determination in favour of the Respondent on 11th December, 2023.
c) Thereafter, the Respondent filed a Party to Party Bill of Costs dated 24th October, 2024 for the sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Hundred (Kshs. 959,125/-).
d) The Applicant herein objected to the Bill of Costs and filed submissions. On 28th May 2025, the Taxing Master taxed the Plaintiff/Respondent's Bill of Costs as drawn at a sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Hundred (Kshs. 959,125/-).
e) The Applicant was greatly dissatisfied by the said ruling and hereby objected to the Taxing Master's decision issued on 28th May, 2025.
f) In arriving at the amounts of costs awarded to the Respondent, the Learned Taxing Master never properly abided with the principles applicable to such taxations, failed to appreciate the submissions of the Applicant and proceeded to award the costs of the bill of costs as drawn by the Respondent.
g) The Taxing Master never found even a single item to disallow and proceeded to award the whole Bill of Costs as drawn thereby subjecting the Applicant to high figures to pay.
h) The Learned Taxing Master took into account irrelevant matters and generally awarded Items 3 to 95 without considering that some of these items had been objected to by the Applicant herein (the Respondent in the said Bill of Costs) and thus arrived at an unreasonably high figures for all the objected items being items numbers 1, 2, 3,4,5, 8,2, 32, 41, 42, 44, 55, 56, 58,59,60,62, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 85 as enumerated in the Applicants submissions.
i) The reimbursed costs as ordered by the Learned Taxing Master were not fair.
j) The Taxing Masters have a discretion that they must apply judiciously.
k) The awarded figures in the Ruling were unfair to the Applicant. Hence this Court was urged to set aside the said Ruling and the fees awarded and instead assess them as per the applicable Schedule.
l) The Applicant was apprehensive that the Respondent may at any time proceed to execute for the awarded costs and if that happened the Applicant stood to suffer loss and damage.
m) The Respondent shall not suffer prejudice by granting the stay orders sought herein as he could be compensated after the court makes its determination regarding this reference cause.
III. The responses by the Respondent
5. The Respondent objected to the application by filing of three ( 3 ) Grounds of Opposition dated 3rd of September 2025. The Respondent raised the following grounds that:-
a) The reference herein lacked merit as the Taxing Master considered the Bill of Costs and the submissions by parties and the record wholly while explicitly giving her decision.
b) The reference was an afterthought, misadvised, baseless, frivolous, misconceived, lacked merit and an abuse of the court process as it never disclosed any reasonable legal and /or factual ground to warrant the grant of the prayers sought.
c) The application was incompetent, non-starter in law and should be struck out having been filed in contravention of the provisions of Paragraphs 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
IV. The Replying Affidavit
6. The Respondent further filed a 9 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit dated 15th October, 2025 and sworn by MARC MARCEL VEREECKE the Respondent herein before a Notary Public at Roeselare, Belgium. He stated as follows that:-
a) He was the Respondent herein and well conversant with the facts of the case herein and hence competent to swear this Affidavit.
b) He instituted a suit against the Applicant and one Winnie Mwangome vide “Kwale ELCC No. E017 of 2021 - Marc Marcel Vereecke – Versus - Maria Mnyazi Mwangome & Ano”. Whereby on 11th December, 2023, Judgment was delivered in his favour.
c) In the said aforementioned Judgment, the Respondent was awarded costs. Consequently, his Advocate on record filed the Plaintiff's Party & Party Bill of Cost dated 24th October, 2024 seeking to have the costs awarded taxed.
d) On 28th May, 2025 his Party & Party Bill of Cost was taxed at a sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Hundred (Kshs. 959,125/-).
e) He was advised by his Advocate which advise he believed to be true that: -
i. The application herein lacked merit as the Taxing Master considered the Bill of Costs and the submissions by parties and the record wholly while explicitly giving her decision.
ii. The application herein was an afterthought, misadvised, baseless, frivolous, and misconceived and the same is an abuse of the court process as it never disclosed any reasonable legal and/or factual grounds to warrant the grant of the prayers sought.
iii. The application was incompetent, non-starter in law and the should be struck out for not having been filed in contravention of the provisions of Paragraphs 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.
f) The application had been brought in utmost bad faith as it never met the threshold of granting of the orders being sought. It was intended to frustrate and or delay the Respondent in enjoying the fruits of the Judgment in my favour.
g) The application should be dismissed with costs.
V. Submissions
7. On 8th October, 2025, while only in the presence of the Counsel for the Respondent, the Honourable Court directed the parties to have the Chamber Summons application dated 26th June, 2025 be canvassed by way of written submissions.
8. Pursuant to that, all parties fully complied and the Honourable Court reserved the delivery of the Ruling on 14th April, 2016 accordingly.
A. The Written Submissions by the Applicants
9. The Law firm of Messrs. K Lughanje & Co Advocates filed written submissions dated 4th December, 2025 on behalf of the Applicant. M/s. Otieno Advocate commenced her submissions by stating by recounting that what was before the Court was the Chamber Summons application dated 26th June, 2025. It sought the above stated reliefs. The Counsel averred that on 2nd July, 2025, the Honourable Court granted temporary Stay of Execution of the Ruling and the and orders of the Taxing Master dated 28th May, 2025.
10. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 3rd September, 2025 and a Replying Affidavit dated 15th October, 2025. The Applicant had objected to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 2, 32, 41, 42, 44, 55, 56, 58,59,60,62, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75,76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 85 of the subject Bill of Costs dated 24th October, 2024. That the Taxing Master never found even a single item of the items objected to above to disallow and/or reduce and proceeded to award the whole bill of costs as drawn thereby subjecting the Applicant to high figures to pay.
11. It was submitted that in the Ruling dated 28th May 2025, some of the objected items from item 3-95 were allowed as drawn thereby subjecting the Applicant to pay heavy costs without the Taxing Master giving any reasons for such awards. That the Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 3rd September, 2025 challenging the validity of the reference, that it was incompetent and non - starter in law as regards to paragraph 11 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014.
12. Learned Counsel submitted that looking at the Tax Master's Ruling dated 28th May, 2025 at paragraph 17, the Taxing Master clearly stated that "30 days’ stay was granted to any party aggrieved by this ruling." That from the forgoing, parties had 30 days to move the court in case a party was aggrieved by the ruling and that the section quoted by the Respondent in his Grounds of Opposition could not apply as the court had clearly issued orders towards it. That the Applicant being aggrieved by the ruling filed the reference by way of the subject chamber summons within the time granted by the Taxing Master and therefore the grounds of opposition was misplaced hence the reference was properly in court.
13. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel argued that the Chamber Summons application by the Applicant was merited. She urged the Court to consider it and proceed to make its findings on merit.
B. The Written Submissions by the Respondent
h) The Law firm of Messrs. Lewa & Co Advocates filed submissions dated 29th October 2025 on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Lewa Advocate commenced by stating that the Judgement was delivered by Court on 11th December, 2023 in favour of the Respondent. Consequently, they filed the Respondent’s party & Party Bill of Costs seeking to have the costs awarded taxed. The costs were taxed on 28th May, 2025 at a sum of a sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Hundred (Kshs. 959,125/-). These were the costs taxed that the Applicant applied to be varied or reviewed through the said application.
14. From the onset, the Learned Counsel contended that the application was incompetent and non – starter in law as it was in contravention of the provision of Paragraph 11 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. That there was no indication to show that prior to filing the application herein the Applicant had given notice to the taxing Officer of the Items they were aggrieved on as required by Law and within the stipulated period.
15. To buttress on this point, the Learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on the holding in the “M/s Oduk & Co. Advocates – Versus - Mideny (Miscellaneous Civil Application E054 of 2021) [2025]”.
16. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion while taxing the Respondent's Bill of Costs. She took into consideration all relevant principles, provisions of the law and the facts of the case thus the court herein need not interfere with the award as the summons herein lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
17. In the long run, the court was asked to look at the Taxing Master's observation and consideration in her ruling.
C. Discussions and determination
18. I have carefully read and considered the pleadings herein by the Applicants from the Chamber Summons, the Grounds of Opposition as raised in opposition, the several cases cited herein by parties, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and statutes.
19. In order to arrive at an informed, just, equitable and reasonable decision, the Honourable Court has framed the following three ( 3 ) issues for its determination: -
a) Whether the Chamber Summons application dated 26th June, 2025 by the Applicant herein has any merit whatsoever.
b) Whether the parties herein are entitled to the reliefs sought.
c) Who bears the costs of the application herein?
ISSUE No. a). Whether the Chamber Summons application dated 26th June, 2025 by the Applicant herein has any merit whatsoever.
20. Under this Sub – heading, the Honourable Court will be examining the main substratum of the application before it. Ideally, it is the Applicant’s case that the Bill of Costs giving rise to the Chamber Summons application should be varied, reviewed and/or set aside. On the one hand, the Applicant stated that the award made was high and hence ought to be reduced to a reasonable amount. While on the other part, the Respondent raised opposition with one of the grounds being that the application had been filed in contravention of the provisions of paragraphs 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
21. It is trite law that the circumstances under which a court can interfere with the discretion of the Taxing Master has been aptly stated in a myriad of decisions by the High Court. Therefore, there will be no need to re – invent the wheel but to cite them verbatim. They include “M/s Oduk & Co. Advocates – Versus - Mideny (Supra)” as already referred to by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and “Republic – Versus - Ministry of Agriculture & 20 Others Ex - Parte Muchiri W’ Njuguna [2006] eKLR, Ojwang J. (Retired)” stated as follows: -
“The taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise; it is entirely a matter of opinion based on experience. A Court will not, therefore, interfere with the award of a taxing officer, particularly where he is an officer of great experience, merely because it thinks the award somewhat too high or too low; it will only interfere if it thinks the award so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party or the other…The court cannot interfere with the taxing officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.”
22. Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order makes provision for the procedure an aggrieved party must adopt. It provides:
(1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
(2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.
(3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(4) The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) for the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.
23. The procedure contemplated above is:
a. The aggrieved party issues a notice within 14 days on the items objected
b. The Taxing Officer shall forthwith give reasons for his decision
c. Upon receipt of the reason, the objector shall within 14 days’ file an application to the High Court setting out grounds for objection
d. If dissatisfied with the High Court, the objector shall with leave of court appeal to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUE No. b). Whether the parties herein are entitled to the reliefs sought.
24. Under this Sub – title, the Honourable Court will be examining whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought. To begin with, the question is whether the failure to file a reference and opting to instead file the instant Chamber Summons application is fatal or curable. In response to this grounds, the Applicants stated in their submissions that the court had granted them a 30-day Stay of Execution after the taxation and hence there was no need to file a reference as provided for under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
25. The process through which an aggrieved party ought to present their objection of the Taxing Masters decision is clear and mandatory. The first step is to give notice raising the items they intend to object. The taxing master will then give reasons for the taxation and if further aggrieved the aggrieved party should then file chamber summons appealing the decision.
26. I have reviewed the provisions of Paragraph 11[2] of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the same is clear that if aggrieved by the reasons stated by the taxing master, a party will then file an application referred commonly to as a reference by way of Chamber Summons. Evidently, the Applicants herein did not give the requisite notice to the Taxing Master but have straight away opted to file the Chamber Summons challenging the taxation. By all means, this can never be termed as being a procedural technicality to be accorded any curative measures pursuant to the provision of Article 159 ( 2 ) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Nay! Far from it. The reference is clearly not properly before court.
27. Amongst the fundamental principles of law is the adherence of procedures outlined in procedures of law. This is to ensure fairness for both parties that appear before the court and efficient administration of justice as was held in the case of:- “Chelashaw – Versus - Attorney General & Another [2005] 1 EA 33”, without rules of practice and procedure the application and enforcement of the law and the administration of justice would be chaotic and impossible and their absence or non-adherence would lead to uncertainty of the law and total confusion since laws serve a purpose and they enhance the rule of law.
28. In the case of:- “Onjula Enterprises Limited – Versus - Sumaria [1986] KLR 651”, the Court of Appeal held that:
“The rules of the court must be adhered to strictly and if hardship or inconvenience is thereby caused, it would be that easier to seek an amendment to the particular rule. It would be wrong to regard the rules of the court as of no substance. A rule of practice, however technical it may appear, is almost always based on legal principle, and its neglect may easily lead to disregard of the principle involved. See “London Association for the Protection of Trade & Another – Versus - Greenlands Limited [1916] 2 AC 15 at 38”.
29. From the foregoing, having found that there is no proper reference before this court, the court finds that the Chamber Summons application is devoid of merit and hence cannot succeed whatsoever. I associate myself with the court in “Taracisio Githaiga Ruithibo – Versus - Mbuthia Nyingi Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1982; [1984] KLR 505”, where it was held that no court, could wash away the Rules of Court so ignobly. The Chamber Summons application must fail.
ISSUE No. c). Who bears the costs of the application herein?
30. It is trite that the issue of Costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that a party is granted at the conclusion of the legal action and/or proceedings in any litigation hereof.
31. The proviso of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 grants the High Court discretionary power in the award of costs which ordinarily follow the event unless the Court for good reasons orders otherwise. Section 27 [1] provides as follows: -
“1. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers: Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.”
32. By the event it means the result of the legal action.
33. In the instant case, taking that this Honourable Court has decided that the Chamber Summons application is unmerited, it follows that the Respondent shall have the costs to be borne by the Applicant herein.
D. Conclusion and final orders
34. In conclusion, having caused an indepth analysis to the framed issues herein, the Honourable Court based on the Principles of Preponderance of Probabilities and the balance of convenience, specifically it proceeds to make the following findings:-
a) THAT the Chamber Summons application dated 26th June 2025 be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence its dismissed with costs.
b) THAT costs for the Chamber Summons application be awarded to the Respondent to be borne by the Applicant herein.
IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.
RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS……15TH ……. DAY OF ………..APRIL………….2026
Ruling delivered in the presence of: -
a) M/s. Asmaa Maftah, the Court Assistant.
b) Mr. Lewa Advocate for the for the Respondent.
c) No appearance for the Respondents.