https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10202
The court found no error of principle or law in the taxing officer's assessment. It held that the matter was an appeal, not a suit, so instruction fees could not be pegged to the value in the trial court; the applicable scale was the appeals scale. Since the taxed amount was neither manifestly excessive nor...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 10202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Advocate/applicant: Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP Advocates; Client/respondent: Monarch Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E938 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Reference Under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Costs
- Outcome
- Reference dismissed; taxation upheld
- Judges
- ["Sifuna Nixon"]
- Legal Topics
- Advocates Remuneration Order, Taxation Reference, Interference With Taxing Officer's Discretion, Instruction Fees on Appeal, Principles for Upsetting Taxation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP Advocates
Advocate/applicant
Monarch Insurance Company Limited
Client/respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Reference Under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should interfere with the taxing officer's assessment of advocate-client costs
- 2 Whether instruction fees in an appeal should be based on the value of the suit in the trial court
- 3 Whether the taxation was based on an error of principle or was manifestly excessive or insufficient
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no error of principle or law in the taxing officer's assessment. It held that the matter was an appeal, not a suit, so instruction fees could not be pegged to the value in the trial court; the applicable scale was the appeals scale. Since the taxed amount was neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly insufficient, the reference failed and the taxation stood.
Court Disposition
Reference dismissed; taxation upheld
Orders
- The reference is dismissed.
- The taxation ruling is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E938 OF 2024** **MURI MWANIKI THIGE & KAGENI** **LLPADVOCATES................................................ADVOCATE/APPLICANT** **=VERSUS=** **MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY** **LIMITED..................................................................CLIENT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This is a Taxation Reference filed by an Advocate against the Taxation Ruling of Hon. E. C. Chelule (Taxing Officer) of the ruling taxed the Advocate-Client costs at Ksh 141,826/20= 2. The same which is brought under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, is supported by a Replying Affidavit sworn on 7th March 2025. 3. The Advocate opposed this Application. Later the Reference was canvassed by way of written submissions. With both parties filing their respective submissions. ***Determination*** 1. I have considered the Reference, its Supporting Affidavit, the response filed by the Advocate, and the parties’ rival submissions. 2. In ***Nyangito & Co. Advocates v. Doinyo Lessos Cremeries Ltd [2014] KEHC 5481 (KLR)***, it was held that the Judge ought not to interfere with the Taxing Officer’s assessment of costs, unless there was misdirection on a matter of principle. That the Judge will interfere in exceptional cases where there has been an error in principle, but not merely on quantum. 3. As that taxation is an area where Taxing officers are experienced in taxation matters. Further that where the Judge finds that the decision was erroneous, the normal practice is to refer bill back for re-taxation. 4. In ***Republic v. Ministry of Agriculture & 2 Others Ex Parte Muchiri v. Njuguna & 6 Others, Ojwang J*** (as then was) stated that the Judge will interfere only when the decision was based on a wrong principle, or there is an error of principle, or the award was manifestly excessive or manifestly low. 5. This was an Appeal, and not a suit. The Instruction Fees in an Appeal cannot be based on the value or figure stated in the suit in the trial court. This is because the only pleading in an Appeal is the Memorandum of Appeal. Which unlike a Plaint which has the claim, is intended to correct errors of law in fact made by the court. 6. As such, I am of the persuasion that in Appeals the applicable scale is the one for Appeals, not the one for suits. After all an appeal is not a suit; and the parties are not suing or defending a suit. 7. Upon perusing the record, I do not find the Taxing Officer to have been in error of principle or law. Neither was the amount of the taxed costs manifestly excessive or manifestly insufficient. I therefore uphold the said taxation and hereby accordingly dismiss this Reference, with costs. Which costs I hereby assess at Ksh 20,000=. **DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI Virtually on this 6th day of July 2026.** **PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA** **JUDGE**