https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2129

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KITALE** **MISC. APPLICATION NO. E001 OF 2026** *(Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango)* **FARZY KISIANGANI NGANGA……………………………CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **Q-INITIATIVE CBO……….……………………………RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Claimant herein filed an application vide Chamber Summons dated 13th January 2026 seeking orders that; 2. The taxation ruling dated 5th January 2026 delivered in favour of the Applicant specifically on item 1 on instruction fees be set aside and/or varied accordingly. 3. In the alternative, Applicant’s Party’s Party and Party Statement of costs dated 7th April 2025 and specifically on item referred 1, be referred for fresh taxation before another taxing officer. 4. That such orders as to costs be provided for in this application. 5. The application is premised on the grounds that the learned Taxing Officer erred and misdirected herself in awarding instruction fees on a lower scale, when she had correctly found that the matter was a defended cause; that the learned taxing officer failed to appreciate the proceedings especially that this matter having commenced in the year 2024, the relevant order applicable in relation to Item I on instruction fees was the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 2014; that the Taxing Master failed to appreciate that pursuant to the Advocates Remuneration Amendment Order, 2014, the Fees charged as Instructions fee where the value of the subject matter is between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 500,000 on a Defendant’s claim, like in the instant case, where the Judgment sum was Kshs. 354,220, was Kshs. 65,000 and not Kshs. 45,000; that the Learned Taxing Officer failed to appreciate that this being a defended cause, the applicable fees on instructions, as provided by the Advocates Remuneration Amended Order, 2014 are on the higher scale and not lower scale, and lastly, that the learned taxing officer failed to apply the correct principles and the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 in taxing the Applicant’s Party and Party Statement of Costs dated 7th April 2025. 6. The application is supported by the affidavit of Fridah Nzamsa, counsel for the Claimant, sworn on 5th November 2025, in which she reiterates the grounds upon which the application is premised. 7. The Respondent did not file any response to the application. There is no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition on record. 8. Pursuant to the directions of the Court issued on 28th January 2026 requiring the Claimant to file further documents clarifying the issue in dispute, the Claimant filed a further affidavit sworn by counsel, Fridah Nzamsa, on 2nd February 2026. 9. In the further affidavit, counsel depones that the Applicant instructed her firm to institute a claim seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent, a declaration that his termination was unfair, a declaration that the procedure leading to the termination was not followed, terminal dues, and a certificate of service. 10. Counsel further depones that the Respondent entered appearance and filed a response to the claim dated 15th April 2024 and filed on 22nd April 2024, in which it denied the averments in the claim. 11. It is further deponed that the cause proceeded to hearing on various dates, during which the Claimant called two witnesses and the Respondent equally called two witnesses. Judgment was thereafter delivered on 20th February 2025, awarding the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 354,220 being compensation for unfair termination and one month’s salary in lieu of notice. That following delivery of judgment, the Applicant filed a Statement of Costs dated 7th April 2025 and filed on 8th April 2025, together with a list of documents of even date. 12. Counsel avers that in the said Statement of Costs, the Claimant relied on Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. The Statement of Costs came up for assessment on 27th November 2025, after which the matter was slated for ruling on 5th January 2026. 13. It is averred that the Taxing Officer delivered her ruling on 5th January 2026 and taxed the Claimant’s Statement of Costs at Kshs. 68,300 and that the Taxing Officer taxed off Kshs. 20,000 from Item 1 and awarded Kshs. 45,000 as instruction fees instead of the Kshs. 65,000 claimed by the Applicant. 14. The Applicant’s asserts that the Taxing Officer failed to appreciate that, under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, where the value of the subject matter falls between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 500,000 in a defended claim, the applicable instruction fee is Kshs. 65,000. The Applicant therefore contends that the award of Kshs. 45,000 was erroneous. 15. It is further averred that the Taxing Officer failed to appreciate that the matter was a defended cause and that instruction fees ought to have been assessed on the higher scale, not the lower scale, in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. 16. The Applicant maintains that had the Taxing Officer properly appreciated the nature of the proceedings and the applicable scale, she would have arrived at a different finding. 17. The court was thus urged to allow the reference as prayed. **Determination** 1. The only issue before the Court for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought. 2. It is trite that a superior court will not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Taxing Officer unless it is shown that the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle of law, misapprehended the applicable law or that the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to justify an inference of error in principle. 3. From the evidence on record, in particular, annexure FN-2 in the Applicant’s Further Affidavit dated 2nd February 2026, is clear that the suit herein was defended by the firm of Bedan Njeri & Company who entered appearance on 15th April 2024 and filed a response to the Statement of claim. It has also not been controverted that the said firm participated in the proceedings and called witnesses during the hearing. Judgment was ultimately entered in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 354,220. 4. The Applicant has faulted the Taxing Officer’s ruling on grounds that the Taxing Officer applied lower scale which applies to undefended matters instead of the higher scale which is applicable to defended suits under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 2014. 5. Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 draws a distinction between defended and undefended suits. In matters where the value of the subject matter falls between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 500,000 in a defended claim, the prescribed instruction fee is Kshs. 65,000. 6. In taxing Item 1 at Kshs. 45,000, despite the matter having been defended, the Taxing Officer applied the lower scale which amounted to a misapplication of the applicable provision of the Remuneration Order and consequently an error in principle warranting interference by this Court. 7. Consequently, the reference succeeds to the extent that the taxation on Item 1 is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 65,000 as instruction fees. 8. The remainder of the taxation is upheld. 9. Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED** **ON THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026** **MAUREEN ONYANGO** **JUDGE**