' Background
1. I have carefully considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 1st June 2025, which was filed by the applicant in response to the application dated 5th February 2025. That particular application primarily seeks to stay the proceedings relating to the taxation of costs, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal.
2. The basis of the objection is that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025. The objection asserts that there is no pending taxation outcome that can be stayed by way of reference, rendering the application without merit. It is not contested that the applicant filed a Bill of Costs on 22nd August 2024, which was scheduled for taxation on 11th February 2025. The respondent’s current application was filed in the midst of these proceedings.
3. It is also evident that the objection is rooted in points of law, which, if upheld, would have a dispositive effect on the outcome of these proceedings. The resolution of this objection hinges on determining whether this Court has the authority to stay taxation proceedings that are yet to be finalized, and whether the application before me is within the Court’s jurisdiction to determine.
Analysis and Determination
4. I have carefully reviewed the objection and submissions in support and against it. I have also reviewed the binding decisions of the Court of Appeal in Sharma v. Uhuru Highway Development Ltd [2001] 2 EA 531 and C.B. Gor & Gor v. Oriental Commercial Bank Limited (formerly Delphis Bank Limited) [2018] KECA 396 (KLR), both of which were referred to by the applicant. The Court of Appeal in these decisions reaffirmed that the process of taxing costs is a specialized jurisdiction that is exclusively within the remit of the taxing officer, rather than the general jurisdiction of the court and that the role of courts in costs taxation is limited to hearing references. The Court further warned against courts getting involved in the merits of taxation proceedings unless a valid reference is filed under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
5. The present application is not such a properly filed reference. It seeks an order that would have the effect of intruding into the specialized jurisdiction of the taxing officer, effectively placing the court in the position of conducting or revising the taxation itself. Such an approach is unwarranted because, unless and until the taxation process is complete, the judge has no jurisdiction to intervene or second-guess the assessment. The authority of the court to review the taxation arises only after the taxing officer has issued a decision, and then solely through a valid reference under the rules.
Disposition
6. Accordingly, the applicant’s preliminary objection is upheld. The Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025 is struck out with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
'
1. I have carefully considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 1st June 2025, which was filed by the applicant in response to the application dated 5th February 2025. That particular application primarily seeks to stay the proceedings relating to the taxation of costs, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal.
2. The basis of the objection is that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025. The objection asserts that there is no pending taxation outcome that can be stayed by way of reference, rendering the application without merit. It is not contested that the applicant filed a Bill of Costs on 22nd August 2024, which was scheduled for taxation on 11th February 2025. The respondent’s current application was filed in the midst of these proceedings.
3. It is also evident that the objection is rooted in points of law, which, if upheld, would have a dispositive effect on the outcome of these proceedings. The resolution of this objection hinges on determining whether this Court has the authority to stay taxation proceedings that are yet to be finalized, and whether the application before me is within the Court’s jurisdiction to determine.
Analysis and Determination
4. I have carefully reviewed the objection and submissions in support and against it. I have also reviewed the binding decisions of the Court of Appeal in Sharma v. Uhuru Highway Development Ltd [2001] 2 EA 531 and C.B. Gor & Gor v. Oriental Commercial Bank Limited (formerly Delphis Bank Limited) [2018] KECA 396 (KLR), both of which were referred to by the applicant. The Court of Appeal in these decisions reaffirmed that the process of taxing costs is a specialized jurisdiction that is exclusively within the remit of the taxing officer, rather than the general jurisdiction of the court and that the role of courts in costs taxation is limited to hearing references. The Court further warned against courts getting involved in the merits of taxation proceedings unless a valid reference is filed under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
5. The present application is not such a properly filed reference. It seeks an order that would have the effect of intruding into the specialized jurisdiction of the taxing officer, effectively placing the court in the position of conducting or revising the taxation itself. Such an approach is unwarranted because, unless and until the taxation process is complete, the judge has no jurisdiction to intervene or second-guess the assessment. The authority of the court to review the taxation arises only after the taxing officer has issued a decision, and then solely through a valid reference under the rules.
Disposition
6. Accordingly, the applicant’s preliminary objection is upheld. The Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025 is struck out with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
'