https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8910

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU** **MISC. APPL. NO. E008 OF 2024** **SAMUEL WANJOHI KAMAU……………………………………………………APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **TABITHA NGINA KAMAU…………………………………….………….1ST RESPONDENT** **DANSON MWANGI KAMAU……………………………………………2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant has brought the instant Chamber Summons application dated 18th February, 2025 under Rule 11 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Schedule 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Amendment Order seeking that the Bill of Costs dated 28th February, 2024 be set aside and be remitted to another taxing officer for review and reassessment. In the alternative the High Court be pleased to reassess and review the Bill of Costs. 2. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit dated 18th February, 2025 sworn by **STANLEY WANDAKA**. The Applicant stated that in taxing the bill of costs at Kshs.69,460/-, the taxing master erred in principle by failing to take into account the claim, its complexity and the fact that what was before her was an application and not a suit. 3. The application was heard by way of oral submission. Mr. Wandaka for the Applicant stated that Kshs.50,000/- awarded as instructions fee was excessive because the matter was commenced as an application. Counsel argued that the proper fee would have been Kshs.5,000/-. Mrs. Ngetho for the Respondents stated that the Bill of Costs had requested for Kshs.122,000/- as instructions fee and getting up fee but the court only allowed Kshs.50,000/-. **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. This reference raises only one issue for determination; whether the application warrants interference with the taxing masters ruling dated 11th December, 2024. **ANALYSIS** 1. The circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with the decision of a taxing master were set out by the Court of Appeal in the cause of [***Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2005/325) ***[2005] eKLR*** as follows:- ***“On a reference to a judge from the taxation by the Taxing Officer, the judge will not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by the taxing officer unless the taxing officer, erred in principle in assessing the costs. In Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 497, the predecessor of this Court said at page 492 paragraph1.*** ***“where there has been an error in principle the court will interfere; but questions solely of quantum are regarded as matters with which the taxing officers are particularly fitted to deal and the court will interfere only in exceptional cases.”*** 1. Contrary to the allegation by the Applicant, the taxing master did not confuse the Bill of Costs emanating from an application as one from a full suit. The Ruling clearly indicates that the bill emanates from an application for intermeddling which was filed by the Respondents. She identified the applicable law as Schedule 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The taxing master observed the following when determining the instructions fees;- ***“Taking into consideration the work put into defending the application, the nature of the application and the volume of submissions filed, I find that Kshs.50,000/- sufficient under this item.”*** 1. Schedule 10 (1) (f) of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides the following on instructions fees in respect to probate and administration;- ***“To lodge an objection to grant, or a citation or other application or proceedings under the law not otherwise provided for in this Schedule; such as the taxing officer shall consider reasonable, but not less than Kshs 10,000.”*** 1. This Court has considered the pleadings and the oral arguments by counsel and is satisfied that there is no basis for interfering with the taxing master’s exercise of discretion in determining the impugned instructions fees. This Court is satisfied that the taxing master did not wrongly exercise the discretion afforded to her. **FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot is that the application dated 18th February, 2024 is found to be devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Orders Accordingly **DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA TEAMS AT VOI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.** **A.MSHILA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of;** Sanja/Trizah – Court Assistants Mshindi - For the Applicant N/A - For the Respondent