Chande & another v Kwale & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 24 of 2020) [2025] KECA 688 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a Kshs 1.25 million costs award, confirming judges rarely overturn a Taxing Officer's decision unless there's an error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold for interference with a Taxing Officer's decision on a reference
The judge will not interfere unless there is an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or inadequate; quantum-only disputes do not justify interference
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Non-Governmental Organization Board, Kipkorir Too & Kiara, First American Bank and Premchand Raichand, the Court reiterated that taxation is a matter of opinion based on experience; a judge will not upset a taxation merely because the award seems too high or too low, but only where it amounts to an injustice or rests on an error of principle such as taking into account irrelevant factors or omitting relevant ones.
Application of the threshold to the facts
The Taxing Officer gave sufficient reasons, based the award on the market value of the subject properties per a valuation report and the complexity of the consolidated appeals, so no error of principle was shown
The Court found, contrary to the Respondent's assertion, that the Taxing Officer considered the Respondent's submissions and explained how he arrived at the figure. He relied on a recent valuation report dated 2nd July 2023 fixing market value at about Kshs. 33 million, and considered the complexity of three consolidated appeals, consistent with the criteria in rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule and Joreth Limited.
Effect of failure to serve a rule 117(1) application within 3 days
The Court considered the application on its merits because the Appellants did not move to strike it out despite the 9-month delay in service
Although rule 117(1) requires service within 3 days of filing and the Appellants complained they were served 9 months late, the Appellants did not seek to have the application struck out. The Court treated the objection as not dispositive and determined the reference on its merits rather than punishing the procedural lapse.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretionary award unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle or the award is manifestly excessive or inadequate
- The value of the subject matter for instruction fees is determined by the pleadings before judgment, and by the judgment once entered
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs awarded to the Appellants
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer, Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 117(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (reference against a decision of the Registrar as Taxing Officer)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chande & another v Kwale & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 24 of 2020) [2025] KECA 688 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Reference from ruling in taxation of costs in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/688/eng@2025-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.