A. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND.
1. A brief history of this matter is that the Advocate law firm acted for the Clients in Milimani High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E207 of 2021 Mary Wambui Mungai & 2 others v The Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others. Subsequent thereto, the Advocate filed against the Clients its advocate/client bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024, which, vide the ruling that was delivered on 12th June, 2024 was taxed at Ksh.82,498,867.96/- by the Deputy Registrar/Taxing Master Hon. E.O. Wambo. A certificate of taxation was subsequently issued on 26th September, 2024.
2. Being dissatisfied with the taxation, the Clients have now filed a reference vide a chamber summons dated 17th October, 2024, against Hon. Wambo’s ruling, before this court.
B. THE CHAMBER SUMMONS DATED 17TH OCTOBER, 2024.
3. The Clients’ chamber summons dated 17th October, 2024 is expressed to be brought under Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order and Section 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:
a) The Taxing Master applied Schedule VI in taxing the bill of costs and therefore erred in assessing instructions fees instead of applying Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2022.
b) The Taxing Master failed to consider Section 49 A of the Advocates Remuneration Order and arrived at an erroneous decision in its entirety.
c) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in determining the value of the subject matter while calculating the instruction fees and failed to take into consideration the general conduct of the proceedings which involved simple and ordinary issues of law.
d) The Learned Taxing Master failed to interrogate the reasonableness of the advocate-client bill of costs and also failed to contextualize the work done by the Advocate in excessively awarding the sum in items 1of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
e) The Taxing Master erred in fact by failing to take note that the Bill of costs dated 5th April 2024 is manifestly excessive and seeks to unjustly enrich the advocate.
f) The Taxing Master erred in awarding getting up fees since Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order does not have a provision for getting up fees.
g) The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 3, 4, 7, 14 and 15 which were not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
h) The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 without proof of the alleged expense and the same is not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
i) That the Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by allowing the sums in items 6, 14 and 15 yet the correct position is that under Schedule V there is no provision for service and costs attendant to the bill.
j) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by increasing the taxed costs by one half since the bill of costs ought to be presented and taxed under Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order which does not provide for increment of advocates costs by half.
k) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact when he relied on the wrong principles of law in determining the matter.
l) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact by failing to consider the Clients’ submissions in their entirety.
m) This Honourable court is entitled to interfere with wrongful exercise of powers by the Taxing Master.
4. There are 13 listed grounds upon which the application is premised, which are as follows:
a. The Taxing Master applied Schedule VI in taxing the bill of costs and therefore erred in assessing instructions fees instead of applying Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2022.
b. The Taxing Master failed to consider Section 49A of the Advocates Remuneration Order and arrived at an erroneous decision in its entirety.
c. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in determining the value of the subject matter while calculating the instruction fees and failed to take into consideration the general conduct of the proceedings which involved simple and ordinary issues of law.
d. The Learned Taxing Master failed to interrogate the reasonableness of the advocate-client bill of costs and also failed to contextualize the work done by the Advocate in excessively awarding the sum in items 1of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
e. The Taxing Master erred in fact by failing to take note that the Bill of costs dated 5th April 2024 is manifestly excessive and seeks to unjustly enrich the advocate.
f. The Taxing Master erred in awarding getting up fees since Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order does not have a provision for getting up fees.
g. The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 3, 4, 7, 14 and 15 which were not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
h. The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 without proof of the alleged expense and the same is not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
i. That the Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by allowing the sums in items 6, 14 and 15 yet the correct position is that under Schedule V there is no provision for service and costs attendant to the bill.
j. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by increasing the taxed costs by one half since the bill of costs ought to be presented and taxed under Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order which does not provide for increment of advocates costs by half.
k. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact when he relied on the wrong principles of law in determining the matter.
l. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact by failing to consider the Clients’ submissions in their entirety.
m. This Honourable court is entitled to interfere with wrongful exercise of powers by the Taxing Master.
5. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mary Wambui Mungai, the 1st Client, sworn on 17th October, 2024 in which the foregoing grounds are expounded. The said deponent has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Clients.
6. The application is resisted by the Respondent, and to that end a replying affidavit that was sworn on 18th October, 2024 by Walubengo Waningilo, Advocate was filed.
7. The grounds upon which the application is opposed are as summarized as follows:
a. That the reference was filed out of time.
b. That the application is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and intended to embarrass the court.
8. This court directed that the reference be canvassed by way of written submissions and the parties herein filed their respective submissions. I have perused and considered the reference, the affidavit in support thereof, the replying affidavit, the bill of costs, the learned Taxing Master’s ruling, the parties’ submissions and the record in its entirety. The issues that this matter presents for determination are as follows:
a. Whether the instant reference was filed within time.
b. Whether the Clients have presented grounds that would warrant the interference of the learned Taxing Master’s decision by this court.
c. Who should bear the costs of this reference.
9. I will proceed to address the above issues seriatim.
10. The first issue for me to determine is whether the present reference was filed within the period that the law allows/provides.
11. On this issue, it is instructive from the record that the decision of the learned Taxing Master on the bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024 was rendered on 12th June, 2024. It was not until 17th October, 2024 that the reference that is subject to this ruling was filed.
12. The Clients proffer the position that being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Taxing Master, they wrote, through their Counsel on record letters addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this court objecting to the entire taxation and requesting to be furnished, by the Taxing Master, the reasons for the taxation to enable them to pursue a reference against the same. The 1st Client annexed to her affidavit the said letters marked MWM-4 and MWM-5. (A total of five letters, dated 14th June 2024, 11th July 2024, 26th July 2024, 9th August 2024 and 2nd October 2024).
13. The Clients state that none of the letters elicited responses and it is only on 15th October, 2021 at 1621hrs that the reasons for the taxation were provided through the ruling after it was uploaded and published in the Judiciary Case Tracking System.
14. The Clients therefore take the position that the 14-day period within which to file the reference started running from the date that the reasons were given (the date the ruling was uploaded and published) and that the reference that was filed on 17th October, 2024 was therefore within time.
15. On the part of the Advocate, the submission on the issue was that the time within which the Clients were by law permitted to file their reference lapsed on 11th July, 2024, being the date the orders of stay of execution that the Taxing Master issued lapsed.
16. The provision of law which gives the timelines for filing a reference from a Taxing Master’s decision is Rule 11(1) and 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Let us read it:
(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.
17. Rule 11(1) is clear that a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Taxing Master may give notice to the Taxing Master, within fourteen days, identifying the items in the bill of costs to which the party objects.
18. Under Rule 11(2), once the Taxing Master is in receipt of the party’s notice under Rule 11(1), the Taxing Master is obligated to provide the reasons for the taxation on each of the items objected to. A party who wishes to file a reference is required to do so within 14 days of receipt of the reasons from the Taxing Master.
19. The Clients have exhibited through the letters that their Advocates sent to the Deputy Registrar that they gave notice and identified the items in the bill of costs that they were objecting to, within 14 days of delivery of the Taxing Master’s decision. The letter dated 14th June, 2024 referred to an objection to all the items in the bill of costs.
20. The Clients have further proved that the reasons for the taxation were provided in the learned Taxing Master’s ruling that was uploaded and published on the Case Tracking System on 15th October, 2024 at 1621hrs. That then means that the Clients, under Rule 11(2) were required to file their reference within 14 days from 15th October, 2024. The reference herein was filed on 17th October, 2024, which was within the 14-day period, and therefore within time.
21. The second issue for determination is whether the Clients have presented grounds that would warrant the interference of the learned Taxing Master’s decision by this court.
22. In the introduction in his ruling, the learned Taxing Master stated as follow:
“The Advocate/Client bill of costs was filed in court on 5th April, 2024. I have considered the bill of costs and I will be guided by Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.”
23. It is clear from the above introduction that the learned Taxing Master applied Schedule VI of the Advocates Remuneration Order to tax the bill. As a matter of fact, the ruling of the learned Taxing Master refers to the said schedule, throughout.
24. It is not disputed that the Advocate acted for the Clients in a miscellaneous criminal application. That no doubt, falls under the category of criminal cases. The question in controversy, that abounds, is whether the learned Taxing Master applied the correct schedule.
25. The answer to this question is, happily, to be found under Section 49A of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides that the applicable schedule for the taxation of costs between an advocate and a client in criminal cases is Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order. What does the provision state?
49A. Costs in criminal cases
Costs in criminal cases, whether in the High Court or subordinate courts, if not agreed or ordered, shall be taxed as between advocate and client under Schedule V.
26. What way then for the reference? Taking guidance from case law on the matter, Odunga J (as he then was) observed as follows in the case of Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co Advocates v Africa Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2022] KEHC 708 (KLR):
“A consideration of the decision reveals that the Schedule under which the costs were taxed was Schedule VI and not Schedule V which was the Schedule elected by the Applicant. In my view, the application of the wrong Schedule in the taxation of the costs was an error of principle which justifies interference with the discretion of the taxing master.
In the premises, I set aside the ruling dated 25th November, 2020 and direct that the Applicant’s costs be taxed pursuant to Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order.”
27. In the case of Odera Obar & Co. Advocates v Chaterhouse Bank Limited [2018] KEHC 926 (KLR) Makau J held as follows:
“I am alive to the fact, that it is not the duty of this court to demand that taxing master tax the Bill of costs in a given way but I have to emphasize that where a taxation is shown to have been based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is not supported by the relevant schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration) order, the court shall interfere with the taxing officer’s decision. In the instant case there is a glaring error of principle applied in the taxation in applying the wrong schedule. The errors of principle noted leads me to no other conclusion other than to find and hold the orders sought in the application are deserved.”
28. The jurisprudence that emerges from the above decisions is that it amounts to an error in principle where the Taxing Master applies the wrong schedule in taxing a bill of costs and that the High Court will interfere with a decision reached on the basis of such wrong principle.
29. Having said as much, it is my persuasion and holding that by applying the wrong schedule (Schedule VI instead of Schedule V), the learned Taxing Master fell into error of principle that resulted in an erroneous decision.
30. To that end, having reached the finding that the learned Taxing Master erred in principle in applying the wrong schedule, I will proceed to allow the Clients’ reference. I therefore set aside the learned Taxing Master’s decision delivered on 12th June, 2024 in its entirety. I remit the bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024 back for a fresh taxation by another Taxing Master other than Hon. E.O. Wambo.
31. This matter will be placed before the succeeding Taxing Master on 24th July, 2025 for purposes of taking further directions.
32. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya dictates that costs shall follow the event. To that end, the Advocate shall bear the costs of the reference.
33. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED and SIGNED this 1st day of July, 2025.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. Mbaabu.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
1. A brief history of this matter is that the Advocate law firm acted for the Clients in Milimani High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E207 of 2021 Mary Wambui Mungai & 2 others v The Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others. Subsequent thereto, the Advocate filed against the Clients its advocate/client bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024, which, vide the ruling that was delivered on 12th June, 2024 was taxed at Ksh.82,498,867.96/- by the Deputy Registrar/Taxing Master Hon. E.O. Wambo. A certificate of taxation was subsequently issued on 26th September, 2024.
2. Being dissatisfied with the taxation, the Clients have now filed a reference vide a chamber summons dated 17th October, 2024, against Hon. Wambo’s ruling, before this court.
B. THE CHAMBER SUMMONS DATED 17TH OCTOBER, 2024.
3. The Clients’ chamber summons dated 17th October, 2024 is expressed to be brought under Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order and Section 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:
a) The Taxing Master applied Schedule VI in taxing the bill of costs and therefore erred in assessing instructions fees instead of applying Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2022.
b) The Taxing Master failed to consider Section 49 A of the Advocates Remuneration Order and arrived at an erroneous decision in its entirety.
c) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in determining the value of the subject matter while calculating the instruction fees and failed to take into consideration the general conduct of the proceedings which involved simple and ordinary issues of law.
d) The Learned Taxing Master failed to interrogate the reasonableness of the advocate-client bill of costs and also failed to contextualize the work done by the Advocate in excessively awarding the sum in items 1of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
e) The Taxing Master erred in fact by failing to take note that the Bill of costs dated 5th April 2024 is manifestly excessive and seeks to unjustly enrich the advocate.
f) The Taxing Master erred in awarding getting up fees since Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order does not have a provision for getting up fees.
g) The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 3, 4, 7, 14 and 15 which were not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
h) The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 without proof of the alleged expense and the same is not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
i) That the Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by allowing the sums in items 6, 14 and 15 yet the correct position is that under Schedule V there is no provision for service and costs attendant to the bill.
j) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by increasing the taxed costs by one half since the bill of costs ought to be presented and taxed under Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order which does not provide for increment of advocates costs by half.
k) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact when he relied on the wrong principles of law in determining the matter.
l) The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact by failing to consider the Clients’ submissions in their entirety.
m) This Honourable court is entitled to interfere with wrongful exercise of powers by the Taxing Master.
4. There are 13 listed grounds upon which the application is premised, which are as follows:
a. The Taxing Master applied Schedule VI in taxing the bill of costs and therefore erred in assessing instructions fees instead of applying Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2022.
b. The Taxing Master failed to consider Section 49A of the Advocates Remuneration Order and arrived at an erroneous decision in its entirety.
c. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in determining the value of the subject matter while calculating the instruction fees and failed to take into consideration the general conduct of the proceedings which involved simple and ordinary issues of law.
d. The Learned Taxing Master failed to interrogate the reasonableness of the advocate-client bill of costs and also failed to contextualize the work done by the Advocate in excessively awarding the sum in items 1of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
e. The Taxing Master erred in fact by failing to take note that the Bill of costs dated 5th April 2024 is manifestly excessive and seeks to unjustly enrich the advocate.
f. The Taxing Master erred in awarding getting up fees since Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order does not have a provision for getting up fees.
g. The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 3, 4, 7, 14 and 15 which were not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
h. The Taxing Master misdirected himself by allowing the sums in items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 without proof of the alleged expense and the same is not drawn to scale as provided under Schedule V.
i. That the Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by allowing the sums in items 6, 14 and 15 yet the correct position is that under Schedule V there is no provision for service and costs attendant to the bill.
j. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law by increasing the taxed costs by one half since the bill of costs ought to be presented and taxed under Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order which does not provide for increment of advocates costs by half.
k. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact when he relied on the wrong principles of law in determining the matter.
l. The Taxing Master misdirected himself in law and in fact by failing to consider the Clients’ submissions in their entirety.
m. This Honourable court is entitled to interfere with wrongful exercise of powers by the Taxing Master.
5. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mary Wambui Mungai, the 1st Client, sworn on 17th October, 2024 in which the foregoing grounds are expounded. The said deponent has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Clients.
6. The application is resisted by the Respondent, and to that end a replying affidavit that was sworn on 18th October, 2024 by Walubengo Waningilo, Advocate was filed.
7. The grounds upon which the application is opposed are as summarized as follows:
a. That the reference was filed out of time.
b. That the application is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and intended to embarrass the court.
8. This court directed that the reference be canvassed by way of written submissions and the parties herein filed their respective submissions. I have perused and considered the reference, the affidavit in support thereof, the replying affidavit, the bill of costs, the learned Taxing Master’s ruling, the parties’ submissions and the record in its entirety. The issues that this matter presents for determination are as follows:
a. Whether the instant reference was filed within time.
b. Whether the Clients have presented grounds that would warrant the interference of the learned Taxing Master’s decision by this court.
c. Who should bear the costs of this reference.
9. I will proceed to address the above issues seriatim.
10. The first issue for me to determine is whether the present reference was filed within the period that the law allows/provides.
11. On this issue, it is instructive from the record that the decision of the learned Taxing Master on the bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024 was rendered on 12th June, 2024. It was not until 17th October, 2024 that the reference that is subject to this ruling was filed.
12. The Clients proffer the position that being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Taxing Master, they wrote, through their Counsel on record letters addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this court objecting to the entire taxation and requesting to be furnished, by the Taxing Master, the reasons for the taxation to enable them to pursue a reference against the same. The 1st Client annexed to her affidavit the said letters marked MWM-4 and MWM-5. (A total of five letters, dated 14th June 2024, 11th July 2024, 26th July 2024, 9th August 2024 and 2nd October 2024).
13. The Clients state that none of the letters elicited responses and it is only on 15th October, 2021 at 1621hrs that the reasons for the taxation were provided through the ruling after it was uploaded and published in the Judiciary Case Tracking System.
14. The Clients therefore take the position that the 14-day period within which to file the reference started running from the date that the reasons were given (the date the ruling was uploaded and published) and that the reference that was filed on 17th October, 2024 was therefore within time.
15. On the part of the Advocate, the submission on the issue was that the time within which the Clients were by law permitted to file their reference lapsed on 11th July, 2024, being the date the orders of stay of execution that the Taxing Master issued lapsed.
16. The provision of law which gives the timelines for filing a reference from a Taxing Master’s decision is Rule 11(1) and 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Let us read it:
(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.
17. Rule 11(1) is clear that a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Taxing Master may give notice to the Taxing Master, within fourteen days, identifying the items in the bill of costs to which the party objects.
18. Under Rule 11(2), once the Taxing Master is in receipt of the party’s notice under Rule 11(1), the Taxing Master is obligated to provide the reasons for the taxation on each of the items objected to. A party who wishes to file a reference is required to do so within 14 days of receipt of the reasons from the Taxing Master.
19. The Clients have exhibited through the letters that their Advocates sent to the Deputy Registrar that they gave notice and identified the items in the bill of costs that they were objecting to, within 14 days of delivery of the Taxing Master’s decision. The letter dated 14th June, 2024 referred to an objection to all the items in the bill of costs.
20. The Clients have further proved that the reasons for the taxation were provided in the learned Taxing Master’s ruling that was uploaded and published on the Case Tracking System on 15th October, 2024 at 1621hrs. That then means that the Clients, under Rule 11(2) were required to file their reference within 14 days from 15th October, 2024. The reference herein was filed on 17th October, 2024, which was within the 14-day period, and therefore within time.
21. The second issue for determination is whether the Clients have presented grounds that would warrant the interference of the learned Taxing Master’s decision by this court.
22. In the introduction in his ruling, the learned Taxing Master stated as follow:
“The Advocate/Client bill of costs was filed in court on 5th April, 2024. I have considered the bill of costs and I will be guided by Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.”
23. It is clear from the above introduction that the learned Taxing Master applied Schedule VI of the Advocates Remuneration Order to tax the bill. As a matter of fact, the ruling of the learned Taxing Master refers to the said schedule, throughout.
24. It is not disputed that the Advocate acted for the Clients in a miscellaneous criminal application. That no doubt, falls under the category of criminal cases. The question in controversy, that abounds, is whether the learned Taxing Master applied the correct schedule.
25. The answer to this question is, happily, to be found under Section 49A of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides that the applicable schedule for the taxation of costs between an advocate and a client in criminal cases is Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order. What does the provision state?
49A. Costs in criminal cases
Costs in criminal cases, whether in the High Court or subordinate courts, if not agreed or ordered, shall be taxed as between advocate and client under Schedule V.
26. What way then for the reference? Taking guidance from case law on the matter, Odunga J (as he then was) observed as follows in the case of Sophie Chirchir t/a Cherono Chirchir & Co Advocates v Africa Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2022] KEHC 708 (KLR):
“A consideration of the decision reveals that the Schedule under which the costs were taxed was Schedule VI and not Schedule V which was the Schedule elected by the Applicant. In my view, the application of the wrong Schedule in the taxation of the costs was an error of principle which justifies interference with the discretion of the taxing master.
In the premises, I set aside the ruling dated 25th November, 2020 and direct that the Applicant’s costs be taxed pursuant to Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order.”
27. In the case of Odera Obar & Co. Advocates v Chaterhouse Bank Limited [2018] KEHC 926 (KLR) Makau J held as follows:
“I am alive to the fact, that it is not the duty of this court to demand that taxing master tax the Bill of costs in a given way but I have to emphasize that where a taxation is shown to have been based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is not supported by the relevant schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration) order, the court shall interfere with the taxing officer’s decision. In the instant case there is a glaring error of principle applied in the taxation in applying the wrong schedule. The errors of principle noted leads me to no other conclusion other than to find and hold the orders sought in the application are deserved.”
28. The jurisprudence that emerges from the above decisions is that it amounts to an error in principle where the Taxing Master applies the wrong schedule in taxing a bill of costs and that the High Court will interfere with a decision reached on the basis of such wrong principle.
29. Having said as much, it is my persuasion and holding that by applying the wrong schedule (Schedule VI instead of Schedule V), the learned Taxing Master fell into error of principle that resulted in an erroneous decision.
30. To that end, having reached the finding that the learned Taxing Master erred in principle in applying the wrong schedule, I will proceed to allow the Clients’ reference. I therefore set aside the learned Taxing Master’s decision delivered on 12th June, 2024 in its entirety. I remit the bill of costs dated 5th April, 2024 back for a fresh taxation by another Taxing Master other than Hon. E.O. Wambo.
31. This matter will be placed before the succeeding Taxing Master on 24th July, 2025 for purposes of taking further directions.
32. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya dictates that costs shall follow the event. To that end, the Advocate shall bear the costs of the reference.
33. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED and SIGNED this 1st day of July, 2025.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. Mbaabu.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.