Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons application dated November 20, 2021 (arising from Murang'a ELC Appeal No 20 of 2017)· [2022] KEELC 3957 (KLR)

Grace Ruguru Mwangi v Peter Mwangi Njuguna (Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3957 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
28 July 2022
1,918 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Murang'a dismissed a challenge to a taxing master's ruling because the applicant provided no evidence of any error of principle.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By chamber summons dated November 20, 2021, Grace Ruguru Mwangi sought to vary or set aside the taxing master's ruling of November 1, 2021 in Murang'a ELC Appeal No 20 of 2021/2017, contending that the taxing master erred in principle by ignoring the Advocates (Remuneration)(Amendment) Order, 2014 in respect of specified items in a party and party bill of costs dated January 30, 2021, and that the amount awarded was so manifestly low as to warrant the court's interference. The respondent, Peter Mwangi Njuguna, opposed via replying affidavit, arguing that the taxing master dealt with all items in detail, taxed off Kshs 117,740/= from a bill of Kshs 199,995/= allowing a modest Kshs 88,255/=, and that the application was vexatious. The respondent filed submissions relying on authority on interference with taxing masters' decisions; the applicant filed none. The court framed two issues: the merit of the application and costs. It reaffirmed that quantum of taxation lies within the taxing officer's discretion and interference requires an error of principle, restating the principles from First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates. Applying sections 107(1), 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act, it held that the applicant bore the burden of proving error of principle and failed to discharge it, also failing to attach the pleadings underlying the bill. The application was dismissed entirely with costs to the respondent, costs following the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Delivered virtually at Murang'a on July 28, 2022 by L Gacheru J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing master's ruling of November 1, 2021 should be set aside for error of principle

Holding

The application was not merited; the applicant failed to prove any error of principle and did not attach the pleadings underlying the bill of costs, making re-evaluation impossible

Reasoning

The court restated that taxation quantum is within the taxing officer's discretion and interference requires an error of principle or manifestly excessive/low award. The applicant alleged disregard of the Advocates (Remuneration)(Amendment) Order 2014 on specific items but neither substantiated the claim nor filed submissions. Under sections 107(1), 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay on her and was not discharged, so the ruling stood.

p. 4
02

Costs of the reference

Holding

Costs awarded to the respondent as the successful litigant, no special circumstances warranting departure

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act grants discretion on costs, but costs follow the event absent special circumstances. None were found, so the successful respondent was entitled to the costs of the application.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A judge on reference will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion on quantum unless there was an error of principle or the discretion was improperly exercised resulting in injustice
  • The burden of proof lies on the party alleging that the taxing master erred in principle
  • Costs follow the event unless special circumstances exist

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The chamber summons application dated November 20, 2021 is found not merited and is dismissed entirely
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRule 11
  • Advocates (Remuneration)(Amendment) Order, 2014items Nos 3, 17-21 and 24
  • Evidence ActSections 107(1), 109, 112
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27

Cases cited (6)

  • KANU National Elections Board & 2 others v Shah Yakub Farah
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board
    [2005] eKLR
  • Kamunyori & Company Advocates v Development Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2015] eKLR, Civil Appeal No 206 of 2006
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and others
    (2002) EA 64
  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
  • Evans Nyakwana v Cleophas Bwana Ongaro
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge from a taxing master's decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Grace Ruguru Mwangi v Peter Mwangi Njuguna (Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3957 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Chamber Summons application dated November 20, 2021 (arising from Murang'a ELC Appeal No 20 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3957/eng@2022-07-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.