https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc-dr/2026/13

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU** **JR APPLICATION NO.E005 OF 2025** **MARTIN BWANGA LUTHER …………… ……………………… APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **ECXECUTIVE COMMITTEE** **NAKURU AMATEUR BOXING CLUB…………………………RESPONDENT** **RULING AND REASONS FOR TAXATION ON THE PARTY AND PARTY BILL OF COSTS DATED 23RD FEBRUARY ,2026** The Applicant filed an Advocate - Client Bill of Costs on 23rd February ,2026 urging the Court to tax the same at **Kshs.396,488.00** The Bill of Costs arises from the Ruling of Hon.Lady Justice Patricia Gichohi on 9th February ,2026 striking out the Originating Motion with costs to the Respondent. By an Originating Motion dated **9th June 2025**, expressed to be brought pursuant to **Sections 7, 9 and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act** and **Rules 10(2) and 13 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules**, the Applicant sought the following orders: 1. An order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from suspending or continuing to suspend the Applicant from the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club, and further restraining the Respondent from preventing the Applicant from accessing or using the Club’s facilities or participating in its activities, including general meetings and its social media or other communication platforms, or from instigating the arrest or prosecution of the Applicant on account of accessing or using the Club’s facilities, pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion. 2. An order setting aside the Respondent’s decision contained in its letter dated **3rd June 2025**, by which the Applicant was indefinitely suspended from membership of the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club. 3. An order prohibiting the Respondent from suspending, expelling, or purporting to suspend or expel the Applicant from membership of the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club. 4. An order that the costs of the application be borne by the Respondent. The Respondent was served but did not file a response .The Affidavit of service dated 5th August ,2026 and filed in Court on the same day, is on record. The Bill of Costs herein is therefore unopposed .I will proceed to tax the same bearing in mind that I am duty bound to peruse it and counter check it to ensure that the same is drawn to scale . I have carefully considered the Bill of Costs filed by the Applicant herein. This is a matter that was filed in the year 2025 and hence the applicable **Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order is that of 2014.** **Item No.1 – Instruction Fees** The Applicant seeks **Kshs.100,000.00**. The applicable law is Schedule 6 A (j) (ii) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 which provides that :- ***(j) To present or oppose an application for a constitutional and prerogative orders such fee as the taxing master in the exercise of his discretion and taking into consideration the nature and importance of the Petition or application, the complexity of the matter and the difficulty or novelty of the question raised, the amount or value of the subject matter, the time expended by the advocate*** ***(i) Where the matter is not complex or opposed such sum as may be reasonable but not less than 45,0000/=.*** ***(ii)Where the matter is opposed and found to satisfy the criteria set out above, such sum as may reasonable but not less than 100,000/=.*** The Taxing officer has discretion to increase this figure taking into account a number of factors including the following:- 1. ***The nature and importance of the cause or matter.*** 2. ***The amount or value of the subject matter.*** 3. ***The interest of the parties.*** 4. ***The general conduct of the parties.*** 5. ***The complexity of the issues raised and novel points of law.*** 6. ***The time, research and skill expended in the brief.*** 7. ***The volume of documents involved.*** The discretion granted to the taxing officer must also be exercised judiciously and also subject to the principle of reasonableness. Both parties cited several well known cases which elucidate the principles governing the assessment of costs. In the case of **PREMCHAND RAICHAND LTD & ANOTHER –VS- QUARRY SERVICES OF EA LTD & OTHERS [1972]EA PG 162 and REPUBLIC –VS- MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE & 2 OTHERS EX – PARTE SAMUEL MUCHIRI W’NJUGUNA & 6 OTHERS [2006 ]eKLR** where the court held as follows:- ***“The complex element in the proceedings which guide the exercise of the taxing officer’s discretion must be specified cogently and with conviction .If novelty is involved in the main proceedings; the nature of it must be identified and set out in a conscientious mode.*** ***If the conduct of the proceedings necessitated the deployment of a considerable amount of industry, and was inordinately time consuming, the detail of such a situation must be set out in a clear manner.*** ***If large volumes of documentation had to be clarified, assessed and simplified, the details of such initiative by counsel must be specifically indicated apart of course from the need to show if such works have not already been provided for under a different head of costs”*** In the case of **JORETH LIMITED –VS- KIGANO & ANOTHER [2002] E.A.92** the court set out various factors that are to be considered in determine the instruction fee namely; the importance of the matter, general conduct of the case, time taken for it’s dispatch and the impact of the case on the parties. I have perused the proceedings and the matter cannot be deemed to have been overly complex. The prayers sought were of a prerogative nature which fall under schedule 6(j) (ii) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The court has discretion to enhance instructions fees considering the complexity of the matter ,responsibility by counsel ,time spent ,reason done and skill deployed by counsel. The court must ensure that the Advocates instructions fees is to seek and has more and no less than reasonable compensation for professional work done . The court should consider the nature and importance of the subject matter, the responsibility placed on the Counsel and the general conduct of proceedings, time spent, research done and skills deployed by counsel. In determining an instruction fees it must be related to the value of the work done by an Advocate. Advocates should be fairly, appropriately and justly rewarded for their fees bearing in mind the skill they exercised. I have carefully considered the factual and legal issues with a view to gauge complexity of issues, importance of the matter, the amount involved, perusal of entire paper work, studying and preparing for the matter, responsibility shouldered based on the nature and importance of the subject matter. Looking at the court record and the proceedings in the Application, the hearing was not protracted. I did not come across any voluminous or numerous documents that the Advocate had to synthesize and prepare in this matter . I have also reviewed several other references in respect of Judicial Review matters with a view of determining what the trend in awards in such matter is and some of the cases are:- 1. **TRUTH JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION –VS- CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA & ANOTHER [2014]eKLR** where an award of Kshs.200,000/= was upheld in respect of a Judicial Review matter that terminated at the leave stage . 2. **KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL FOOD & ALLIED WORKERS (K) –VS – BANKING INSURANCE & FINANCE UNION (K) CIVIL APPEAL NO.60 OF 1998** where an award of Kshs.150,000/= was upheld in respect of a Judicial Review matter that terminated at leave stage . 3. **NYANGITO& CO.ADVOCATES –VS- DOINYO LESSOS CREAMERIES LTD [2014]eKLR** where Kshs.424,774/= was awarded for defending a Judicial Review matter . The Court has discretion to enhance instructions fees considering the complexity of the matter ,responsibility by counsel ,time spent ,reason done and skill deployed by counsel. The court must ensure that the Advocates instructions fees is to seek and has more and no less than reasonable compensation for professional work done . Bearing in mind all the aforesaid factors and the reasons herein and in exercise of the discretion vested in me, I am fully convinced that the amount sought by the Applicant is grossly excessive. I am fairly convinced that the basic fee applicable is governed by Schedule 6 (J) (ii) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 and the fee provided is Kshs.100,000/=. In the case of **REPUBLIC –VS- MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE &2 OTHERS EXPARTE SAMUEL MUCHIRI W’NJUGUNA & 6 OTHERS [2006]EKLR at Pg 19** It was held that :- ***“Private law claims do not fall in the same class as public law claims such as those in judicial review, in constitutional applications, in public electoral matters. Such matters are in a class of their own and the instruction fees allowable in respect of them should not ,in principle be extrapolated from the practices obtaining in the private law domain which may involve business claims and profit calculations “.*** In Public Law Litigation, the amount involved is not the sole determinant when it comes to costs. Judicial Review suits are not money suits as they merely seek declaratory reliefs and orders. This being a Party and Party Bill of Costs, I am of the view that **Kshs.100,000/=** is reasonable instruction fees taking into account the time taken in this matter, scope of the work done and the nature of the dispute herein**.(Kshs.100,000.00 )**is hereby taxed off. **Items No.2 –Getting up fees** Getting up fees is charged at one third of the instructions fees .The same is justified .The Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 provides that in any case in which a denial of liability is filed or in which issues for trial are joined by the pleadings, a fee for getting up and preparing the case for trial shall be allowed in addition to the instruction fee and shall be not less than one third of the instruction fee allowed on taxation.**1/3 of 100,000/= 33,333.30 (Kshs.33,666.70)** is hereby taxed off. **Item No.3** This item relates to drawing a Notice of Preliminary Objection .The same contains 3 folios. This item is taxed at **Kshs.1,100.00** as provided under Schedule 6 (4)(i) of the ARO ,2014.**(Kshs.750.00).** **Items No .4** This item relates to drawing of the Respondent’s Written Submissions. The Written Submissions are 24 folios while the rest are copies which are 76 4 folios ………………………………………………..…………Kshs.1,100.00 20x 150.00………………………………………………………Kshs.3,000.00 **Total …………………………………………..……………...…Kshs.4,100.00** **Copies 76 x25 x3 ……………………………………..…...….Kshs.5,700.00** This item is therefore taxed at **Kshs.9,800.00 (Kshs.16,800.00)** is hereby taxed off. **Item No.5** This item relates to drawing a Notice of address for service. The same contains 3 folios. This item I staxed at **Kshs.1,100.00** as provided under Schedule 6 (4)(i) of the ARO ,2014.**(Kshs.150.00)** **Items No.6-9** These items relate to Court Attendances, they are all taxed at **Kshs.1,000.00 (Kshs.500.00)** is hereby taxed off . **Items No.12 -14** These items relate to Court Attendance. They are taxed at **Kshs.2,300.00 (Ksh.3,700.00)** is hereby taxed off **Item No.15** – Taxed at **Kshs.5,000.00 (Kshs.10,000.00)** is hereby taxed off **Item No.16** – Taxed at **Kshs.1,400.00 (Kshs.1,100.00 )** **Items No.10,11&17** – These items relate to court fees and submissions **Disposition** Based on the foregoing therefore, the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd February ,2026 and filed in Court on the same day is hereby taxed at**Kshs.166,233.30 *(Kenya Shillings one hundred and sixty six thousand ,two hundred and thirty three and thirty cents )*** A total sum of **(Kshs.230,254.70) *(Kenya shillings two hundred and thirty thousand ,two hundred and fifty four and seventy cents )*** is hereby taxed off from the entire Bill. 14 Days Right to file a Reference. **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **L.A. MUMASSABBA** **PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR** **11.8.2026** **RULING DATED, READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM THIS 11TH AUGUST ,2026** **In the Presence of:** Mr. Okul Holding Brief for Mr. Kenyatta for the Applicant Respondent:Absent Court Assistant: Phoebe