https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8113

Kuria v Transafrica Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal E040 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8113 (KLR) (Civ) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8113 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Civil Civil Appeal E040 of 2024 KW Kiarie, J June 11, 2026 Between Naftaly Mbaru Kuria Appellant and Transafrica Motors Ltd Respondent Ruling 1.The respondent/applicant moved the court through a Chamber Summons dated the 2nd day of April 2026. It was brought under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The applicant is seeking the following orders:a.The decision by the Deputy Registrar Hon Lynn Atamba (“the Deputy Registrar”) delivered on the 11th March, 2026, be set aside, and the party and party bill of costs dated 28th October, 2025, be taxed afresh.b.That in referring the bill of costs to be taxed afresh, this honourable court issue an appropriate direction.c.That each party bear its own costs. 2.The application was premised on the following grounds:a.The learned Deputy Registrar erred in law by taxing the party and party bill of costs dated 28th October, 2025, at Kshs. 120,000/ on instructions fees.b.The learned Deputy Registrar erred in law by taxing the party and party bill of costs dated 28th October, 2025, items 3-15 as drawn. 3.The respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:a.The application is bad in law, made in bad faith, inept, lacks merit, an afterthought and otherwise amounts to an abuse of the court process aimed at delaying this matter.b.The application is intended to unjustifiably interfere with the lawful exercise of discretion by the Learned Deputy Registrar in taxing the appellant’s party and Party Bill of costs dated 28/10/2025.c.The learned Deputy Registrar delivered a reasoned ruling on 11/3/2026, taxing the appellant’s Bill of costs at Kshs. 140,800/= after considering the applicable law and the nature of the appeal.d.In exercising her discretion judiciously, the taxing officer taxed off item 2(getting up fees) in its entirety, demonstrating fairness and proper exercise of discretion and thus reducing the bill substantially.e.While the objection covers most of the items in the Bill, the applicant has nonetheless failed to demonstrate any error of principle to justify interference with taxation.f.The applicant’s grievance is merely that the amount taxed is excessive, which is not a sufficient ground for this honourable Court to interfere with taxation.g.Taxation is a matter of judicial discretion, and this honourable court ought not to substitute its own discretion for that of the taxing officer in the absence of a clear error of principleh.The applicant has failed to meet the legal threshold for interference with taxation.i.The application is intended to reopen taxation proceedings without any lawful basis.j.In the interest of justice, the taxation delivered on 11/3/2026 should be upheld. 4.Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides as follows:(1)Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.(2)The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items, and the objector may, within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.(3)Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.(4)The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) far the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired. 5.The applicant has not shown compliance with Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. This non-compliance renders the application legally invalid. Therefore, it is dismissed with costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE