[2025] KEHC 7768 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7768 (KLR)

The court found that the taxing officer erred in principle by including an unspecified amount of interest in the value of the subject matter for purposes of assessing instruction fees, despite the judgment not awarding any interest. The officer adopted a figure exceeding the amount pleaded, without proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7768 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nancy Wanja Gatabaki; Defendant: Muga Developers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit 90 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Costs
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
SN Mutuku
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fees, Getting Up Fees, Error of Principle, Advocates Remuneration Order
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Getting Up Fees Error of Principle Advocates Remuneration Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Wanja Gatabaki

Plaintiff

Muga Developers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees and getting up fees in the defendant's party and party bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of interest in the value of the subject matter for purposes of taxation was proper.
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of costs was manifestly excessive and warrants interference by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing officer erred in principle by including an unspecified amount of interest in the value of the subject matter for purposes of assessing instruction fees, despite the judgment not awarding any interest. The officer adopted a figure exceeding the amount pleaded, without proper justification or evidence for the interest component. The court held that, following the Advocates Remuneration Order and relevant case law, the value for instruction fees should be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment, or settlement, and only if indeterminable from these sources may discretion be exercised. Since the suit was dismissed with costs and the only ascertainable value was...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The ruling delivered by the taxing officer on 7th June 2024 and the Certificate of Taxation are set aside.
  • The Defendant's/Respondent's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 18th October 2023 shall be placed before a different taxing officer other than Hon. Eric Wambo (Deputy Registrar) for re-taxation only in respect of items 1 and 2.