[2025] KEHC 8175 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8175 (KLR)

The court found that the Taxing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for the assessment of instruction fees, attendances, and disbursements, particularly in light of the Respondent's partial success in the underlying suit. The Taxing Officer appeared to have considered irrelevant items and did not justify the amounts awarded, contrary to the requirements of the Advocates Remuneration Order and established case law. The court held that a detailed scrutiny of the Bill of Costs was necessary and that the matter should be remitted to the Taxing Officer for reconsideration. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to the error being occasioned by the court.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8175 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Nderi Munyito; Respondent: Paul Muiruri Kibui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyahururu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E024 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Costs
Outcome
Reference allowed; decision of the Taxing Officer and certificate of costs set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Assessment of Instruction Fees
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Party and Party Costs Advocates Remuneration Order Assessment of Instruction Fees

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Nderi Munyito

Applicant

Paul Muiruri Kibui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in assessing instruction fees, attendances, and disbursements without proper consideration of the extent of the Respondent's success in the underlying suit.
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Officer provided adequate reasons for the amounts awarded in the certificate of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the court should interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion in the assessment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for the assessment of instruction fees, attendances, and disbursements, particularly in light of the Respondent's partial success in the underlying suit. The Taxing Officer appeared to have considered irrelevant items and did not justify the amounts awarded, contrary to the requirements of the Advocates Remuneration Order and established case law. The court held that a detailed scrutiny of the Bill of Costs was necessary and that the matter should be remitted to the Taxing Officer for reconsideration. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to the error being occasioned by the court.

Court Disposition

Reference allowed; decision of the Taxing Officer and certificate of costs set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The decision of the Taxing Officer and the certificate of stated costs dated 5th June, 2024 are set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Taxing Officer for reconsideration of the Bill of Costs.