[2025] KEHC 5857 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5857 (KLR)

The court found that the taxing officer failed to provide reasons for the assessment of costs and did not assess the bill of costs item by item as required under Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The taxing officer's decision was based solely on the absence of submissions from the Applicant, rather than a principled assessment of each item claimed. Several items allowed by the taxing officer were not provided for under the relevant schedule, and disbursements were allowed without proof of receipts. The court held that these failures constituted errors in principle, warranting the setting aside of the taxation decision. The Respondent's bill of costs was not properly...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5857 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Onyango Omambo; Respondent: John Okello Ogutu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 May 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Reference Application E004 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Reference From Taxing Officer's Decision
Outcome
application allowed; taxing officer's decision set aside; bill of costs to be reassessed afresh before a different taxing officer; each party to bear own costs
Judges
DK Kemei
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Party and Party Costs, Judicial Review of Taxing Officer, Costs in Subordinate Courts
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocates Remuneration Order Party and Party Costs Judicial Review of Taxing Officer Costs in Subordinate Courts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Onyango Omambo

Appellant

John Okello Ogutu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Reference From Taxing Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by failing to assess the bill of costs item by item as required under the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's bill of costs was properly taxed in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to have the taxation set aside and the bill of costs reassessed afresh.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing officer failed to provide reasons for the assessment of costs and did not assess the bill of costs item by item as required under Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The taxing officer's decision was based solely on the absence of submissions from the Applicant, rather than a principled assessment of each item claimed. Several items allowed by the taxing officer were not provided for under the relevant schedule, and disbursements were allowed without proof of receipts. The court held that these failures constituted errors in principle, warranting the setting aside of the taxation decision. The Respondent's bill of costs was not properly...

Court Disposition

application allowed; taxing officer's decision set aside; bill of costs to be reassessed afresh before a different taxing officer; each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • The ruling by the taxing master dated 7/1/2025 is set aside.
  • The Respondent's bill of costs dated 12/9/2024 shall be assessed afresh before a different taxing officer.