1. The subject matter of this ruling is the application dated 25 th September, 2025 whereof the Respondent/Applicant sought for inter alia:
(i) That this court set aside the taxing officer’s decision and ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 and instead direct the re-taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 16 th October, 2023 on merits or in the alternative proceeds to tax the Bill of Costs dated 16/10/2023.
(ii) Costs of the application.
2. When served with the application, the appellant/Respondent filed a replying affidavit to oppose the aforesaid application. When the application came up for interpartes hearing, this court gave directions which is to the effect that the application would be disposed off by written submissions.
3. I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the application plus the rival written submissions and the authorities cited.
4. It is the submission of the applicant that there was a patently gross error on the face of the record regarding the ruling by the taxing officer dated 14/2/2026 which did not relate to the determination of item by item of the items in the Bill of Costs hence the recourse to an application for review before the same court.
5. It is further the submission of the 8 th Respondent/Applicant that he chose to file the instant application instead of appealing against the ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 ad the issues being raised transcend the matters of taxation.
6. The appellant/Respondent is of the submission the 8 th Respondent/Applicant’s application is abuse of the court process and should therefore be struck out. It is pointed out that the 8 th Respondent is attempting to achieve indirectly what he failed to pursue directly through a reference.
7. It is further argued that the applicant’s contention that there exists an error apparent on the fact of the record cannot cure the incompetence and indolence exhibited in his conduct in relation to the matter.
8. The appellant/Respondent further argued that whether or not the taxing officer misconstrued the nature of the applicant’s Bill of Costs, it is patently clear from paragraph 2 of the Advocates (Renumeration order) that the distinction between an Advocate-client Bill of Costs and a Party and Party Bill of Costs is immaterial for purposes of challenging a decision of the taxing officer.
9. It is argued that once a Deputy Registrar rendered a ruling in her capacity as the Taxing Officer any party aggrieved by that decision was required to invoke the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Advocates Renumeration Order within the stipulated timelines.
10. The background of instant application appears to be short and straightforward. The 8 th Respondent’s grievance is against the taxing officer’s ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 that upheld the Preliminary Objection and dismissed the 8 th Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 16 th October, 2023.
11. The Respondent’s Party and Party Bill of Costs which was filed on 29 th November, 2023 was dismissed under the provision of Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act for being statute barred vide the ruling delivered on 14/2/2025.
12. It is clear from the record that parties were given 14 days to challenge the dismissal order. The 8 th Respondent/Applicant instead of filing a reference opted to file the instant application for review under order 45 rules 1(1) (b) and2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
13. The main issue which should be determined in the instant application is whether the recourse for intervention against the taxing officer’s ruling is by reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Renumeration order or by an application for review.
14. Having considered the rival submissions over the issue I have come to the following conclusions in the matter. First , that it is trite law that a party dissatisfied with a taxing officer’s decision is required to challenge the decision through a reference before a Judge. This issue was settled in the case of Machira & Co. Advocates Vs Magugu & Anotehr (2002) e E.A 428 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia:
“…any complaint about a decision of the taxing officer whether it relates to a point of law taken with regard to taxation or to grievance about the taxing of any item in the Bill of Costs is ventilated by way of reference to the Judge in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Advocate’s Renumeration Order”.
15. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order prescribes timelines as follows:
“Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, be may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects”.
16. It is apparent that the 8 th Respondent failed to issue a notice of objection within 14 days and thereafter file a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order.
17. With respect I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the appellant/Respondent that instant application is incompetent. Even if the same is deemed as a reference, the same was not filed within the timelines prescribed under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order. I agree that the instant application was filed in abuse of the court process.
18. In the end, the application dated 25 th September, 2025 is found to be incompetent and is without merit. The same is ordered struck out and dismissed with costs to the Appellant/Respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 22 nd day of September, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Jamleck/Rutoh C/A
Mbiyu for the 1 st – 7 th Respondent
Njambi holding brief for Kagucia for Appellant/Respondent
2 | Page
(i) That this court set aside the taxing officer’s decision and ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 and instead direct the re-taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 16 th October, 2023 on merits or in the alternative proceeds to tax the Bill of Costs dated 16/10/2023.
(ii) Costs of the application.
2. When served with the application, the appellant/Respondent filed a replying affidavit to oppose the aforesaid application. When the application came up for interpartes hearing, this court gave directions which is to the effect that the application would be disposed off by written submissions.
3. I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the application plus the rival written submissions and the authorities cited.
4. It is the submission of the applicant that there was a patently gross error on the face of the record regarding the ruling by the taxing officer dated 14/2/2026 which did not relate to the determination of item by item of the items in the Bill of Costs hence the recourse to an application for review before the same court.
5. It is further the submission of the 8 th Respondent/Applicant that he chose to file the instant application instead of appealing against the ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 ad the issues being raised transcend the matters of taxation.
6. The appellant/Respondent is of the submission the 8 th Respondent/Applicant’s application is abuse of the court process and should therefore be struck out. It is pointed out that the 8 th Respondent is attempting to achieve indirectly what he failed to pursue directly through a reference.
7. It is further argued that the applicant’s contention that there exists an error apparent on the fact of the record cannot cure the incompetence and indolence exhibited in his conduct in relation to the matter.
8. The appellant/Respondent further argued that whether or not the taxing officer misconstrued the nature of the applicant’s Bill of Costs, it is patently clear from paragraph 2 of the Advocates (Renumeration order) that the distinction between an Advocate-client Bill of Costs and a Party and Party Bill of Costs is immaterial for purposes of challenging a decision of the taxing officer.
9. It is argued that once a Deputy Registrar rendered a ruling in her capacity as the Taxing Officer any party aggrieved by that decision was required to invoke the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Advocates Renumeration Order within the stipulated timelines.
10. The background of instant application appears to be short and straightforward. The 8 th Respondent’s grievance is against the taxing officer’s ruling dated 14 th February, 2025 that upheld the Preliminary Objection and dismissed the 8 th Respondent’s Bill of Costs dated 16 th October, 2023.
11. The Respondent’s Party and Party Bill of Costs which was filed on 29 th November, 2023 was dismissed under the provision of Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act for being statute barred vide the ruling delivered on 14/2/2025.
12. It is clear from the record that parties were given 14 days to challenge the dismissal order. The 8 th Respondent/Applicant instead of filing a reference opted to file the instant application for review under order 45 rules 1(1) (b) and2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
13. The main issue which should be determined in the instant application is whether the recourse for intervention against the taxing officer’s ruling is by reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Renumeration order or by an application for review.
14. Having considered the rival submissions over the issue I have come to the following conclusions in the matter. First , that it is trite law that a party dissatisfied with a taxing officer’s decision is required to challenge the decision through a reference before a Judge. This issue was settled in the case of Machira & Co. Advocates Vs Magugu & Anotehr (2002) e E.A 428 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia:
“…any complaint about a decision of the taxing officer whether it relates to a point of law taken with regard to taxation or to grievance about the taxing of any item in the Bill of Costs is ventilated by way of reference to the Judge in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Advocate’s Renumeration Order”.
15. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order prescribes timelines as follows:
“Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, be may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects”.
16. It is apparent that the 8 th Respondent failed to issue a notice of objection within 14 days and thereafter file a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order.
17. With respect I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the appellant/Respondent that instant application is incompetent. Even if the same is deemed as a reference, the same was not filed within the timelines prescribed under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) order. I agree that the instant application was filed in abuse of the court process.
18. In the end, the application dated 25 th September, 2025 is found to be incompetent and is without merit. The same is ordered struck out and dismissed with costs to the Appellant/Respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 22 nd day of September, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Jamleck/Rutoh C/A
Mbiyu for the 1 st – 7 th Respondent
Njambi holding brief for Kagucia for Appellant/Respondent
2 | Page