Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Erdermann Property Limited v London Distillers (K) Limited [2025] KEHC 10505 (KLR)
High Court partly allowed a reference against taxation, upheld instruction fees for one bill, substituted the other with Kshs.50,000, and rejected getting-up fees.
Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Intertek Testing Services EA Limited & another (Interested Parties); Sgs Kenya Limited (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 10529 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any tangible or cogent evidence explaining the delay in filing the reference against the Taxing Officer's decision. The statutory requirements under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order are mandatory, and the applicant did not comply with the requirement to serve a notice of objection specifying the items objected to. The court emphasized that its discretion to enlarge time can only be exercised where a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for delay is provided, which was lacking in this case. The court further held that comp…
Source excerpt
Ghani v Wakabu [2025] KEHC 10189 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the reference, namely lack of service of the certificate of assessed costs and only becoming aware of the taxation upon the arrival of auctioneers. The period of delay was not inordinate, and the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution would be prejudiced if the extension was denied. The court exercised its discretion under the Advocates Remuneration Order, Civil Procedure Rules, and inherent jurisdiction to allow the application for extension of time, subject to…
Source excerpt
Njore v Decasa Hotel [2025] KEELRC 2060 (KLR)
The court held that the proper procedure for challenging a taxing officer's decision is by filing a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The applicant did not invoke this procedure nor seek enlargement of time to do so. The court found that it could not grant substantive orders not specifically sought, and that the application was incompetent and devoid of merit. The court emphasized that statutory procedures for objecting to taxation must be strictly followed, and failure to do so renders such applications fatally defective.
Source excerpt
Murambi & 2 others (Suing on behalf of the Estate of the Late Vincent Wanyonyii Murambi) v County Government of Bungoma & another [2025] KEELC 5412 (KLR)
The court found that although the Respondents/Applicants did not receive a direct response from the taxing master to their request for reasons, the ruling of the taxing master itself contained sufficient reasoning and justification for the taxation. The court held that the Applicants' insistence on a separate response was unnecessary and that the delay in filing the reference could have been avoided by referring to the ruling. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to file the taxation reference out of time, emphasizing that procedural rigidity shou…
Source excerpt
Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Pride Kings Services Limited [2025] KEHC 9771 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing master erred in principle by reducing the instruction fees solely because the matter was settled by consent before the first hearing, despite the value of the subject matter being ascertained and a defence having been filed. The applicable law, Schedule 6(1)(c) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, provides that where a suit is settled prior to confirmation, the instruction fee is 85% of the fee chargeable under item 1(b). The applicant was not entitled to getting up fees as the matter was settled before hearing, and disbursements under item 20 required supporti…
Source excerpt
Cool Rivers Hotel Limited v Chege [2025] KEELRC 1969 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application to review or set aside taxation of a party-and-party bill of costs, finding no proper Rule 11 objection or basis to interfere.
Munyasya v Kenya National Union of Teachers & another [2025] KEELRC 1936 (KLR)
The court found that the Taxing Master committed errors of principle by applying the subordinate court scale under paragraph 58 of the Advocates Remuneration Order without justification, as no monetary award was granted in the primary suit and the relief sought could not have been granted by a subordinate court. Additionally, the Taxing Master failed to provide reasons or criteria for the instruction fees awarded, rendering the decision arbitrary. These errors warranted setting aside the taxation ruling and remitting the matter for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Master.
Source excerpt
Momanyi t/a Nchogu, Omwanza and Nyasimi Advocates v Kenyatta National Hospital [2025] KEELRC 1934 (KLR)
The court held that the Taxing Master erred in principle by relying on the pleadings to determine the value of the subject matter for instruction and getting up fees, despite the existence of a judgment in the parent suit. The earlier court had already determined that the value could not be ascertained from the judgment, and this finding was binding and rendered the issue res judicata. The Taxing Master was therefore required to exercise discretion in assessing the fees, rather than defaulting to figures from the pleadings, which were merely proposals and not reflective of the true value of t…
Source excerpt
Scania Sacco Limited v Sireka [2025] KEHC 9009 (KLR)
The High Court declined to interfere with a taxing officer’s assessment of costs, holding that the Kshs. 90,000 instruction fee and total costs were within scale.
Explore more
