https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10093

Kamende DC & Company Advocates v Machakos County Assembly (Miscellaneous Civil Application E200 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10093 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10093 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Miscellaneous Civil Application E200 of 2025 EO Bitta, J May 29, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF A TAXATION DECISION DELIVERED ON 5.05.2025 AND MACHAKOS HIGH COURT MISC. APPLICATION NO. E093 OF 2024; KAMENDE D.C & COMPANY ADVOCATES-VS-MACHAKOS COUNTY AND IN THE MATTER OF MISC APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2018, REPUBLIC-VS-THE CLERK, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF MACHAKOS & 2 OTHERS Between Kamende DC & Company Advocates Applicant and Machakos County Assembly Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant Messrs Kamende D.C and Company Advocates instituted the reference vides a chamber summons application dated the 28th May 2025. The application is supported by factual averments contained in the supporting affidavit of Jackson Akenga sworn on the 28th of May 2025 at Machakos. 2.The Applicant seeks orders from the Court, allowing the reference against the decision of the taxing officer; Honourable M. Thibaru on taxation made on 5th May 2025. 3.The Applicant prays that ruling on taxation delivered by Hon. M. Thibaru on 5th May 2025 with respect to all items of the Applicant’s Bill of Costs dated 18th April, 2024 be set aside. 4.The Applicant prays that the said items be assessed by the Court in such other sums as may appear to be reasonable. 5.The Applicant prays that in the alternative, the Honourable Court remits all items of the Applicant’s Bill of costs dated 18th April 2024 to another Taxing Officer for re-taxation. 6.The Applicants also prays that the cost of the reference be provided for. 7.The Application is predicated on grounds that the ruling by the Taxing Officer’s ruling of 5th May 2025 with respect to all items of the Applicant’s bill of costs dated 18th April 2024 did not correspond with the Applicant’s bill of costs. 8.The Applicant’s reference is supported by factual averments contained in the supporting affidavit of Jackson Akenga sworn on 28th May 2025 wherein the deponed reiterates the grounds of the application. 9.The Respondent opposed the application by way of a replying affidavit in which the Respondent stated that the amount provided for instruction fees was appropriate as expressed in the Remuneration order. 10.The Respondent stated that there was no reason for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the taxing officer whose decision on the impugned items was fair and that it ruling corresponded with items in the Applicant’s bill of costs. 11.Both the Applicant and Respondent filed rival written submissions in support of their respective submissions on the application. 12.Having read the application, the supporting affidavit and annexures thereto, the replying affidavit in opposition to the application, the respective submissions by the parties, I identify the following issues as falling for determination; 13.Whether the Taxing officer misdirected herself by taxing the Advocates bill of in such a way that the entire items in the Taxing officer’s ruling did not correspond with the items in the Applicant’s bill of costs. 14.What relief should the Court grant in the circumstances of the case if any. 15.In matters of taxation and a reference such as this, a court hearing the reference must warn itself that the decision of the Taxing officer can only be interfered with where there is an error in principle in the taxation giving rise to the reference. 16.In the case of Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund [2005] eKLR it was stated by the court that the taxing officer’s decision cannot be interfered with unless it can be shown to have been on an error in principle. This position was reiterated in the case of Nyangito Co. Advocates v Ndoinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] eKLR. Having so warned myself, I proceed to determine the reference before me. 17.Considering the above basic principles, I think the pertinent questions in this ruling are whether or not it has been shown by the Applicant that the Taxing Officer acted on the wrong principles. 18.The Applicant stated complained of is that the Taxing officer misdirected herself in making an assessment on all the items that is at variance with those in the Advocates Bill of costs. 19.Since the parties are bound by their pleadings and a party cannot rely on any other ground other than the one set out in the application. I have confined myself to that sole ground for the reference. 20.I have perused the Advocates' bill of costs annexed to the supporting affidavit of the Applicant and the ruling of the Taxing Officer, and it is apparent that it is not accurate that all the items in the ruling did not correspond with the items in the Applicant’s bill of costs; consequently, I find that the reference fails on that score.a.I order that the Applicant’s application dated 28th of May 2025 be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026EMMANUEL BITTAJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT