Mathenge & another v Belle Holdings Limited & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that legal costs in a bill of costs attract VAT, and dismissed a challenge to a taxed award of over Kshs 704,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prematurity of the reference for failure to seek reasons from the taxing master
The plaintiffs did not demonstrate they first wrote to the taxing master seeking reasons as required by Rule 11, so the reference was premature, though the court proceeded to the merits in the interest of justice under section 3A.
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order obliges an objector to request the taxing officer's reasons within 14 days before moving the judge by chamber summons. The plaintiffs skipped that step. Relying on Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara, the court nonetheless exercised its discretion to determine the reference on its merits to save judicial time.
Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing items 2, 3, 8, 9, 12-19, 22, 23 and 31
No error of principle; the taxing master applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration Order) 2014 and the figures were consistent with the schedule.
The court perused the bill and the impugned items and found the taxing master applied Schedule 6, which covers routine drafting, attendances, registry work, copying and perusals. The taxing master was within his discretion to increase or decrease scheduled amounts, and the figures were generally consistent with the schedule, so no basis existed to disturb the awards.
Whether party and party costs are subject to VAT
Yes - VAT is properly chargeable, following the Court of Appeal in E. A. Building Society v D'Souza and the High Court in Four Farms v Agricultural Finance Corporation.
Costs are intended to reimburse the successful litigant for expenses; the litigation 'fight' is conducted by counsel, whose services attract VAT under section 5 of the Value Added Tax Act 2013. The Court of Appeal decision in E. A. Building Society is binding on this court, and the court agreed with Four Farms, departing from Pyramid Motors.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion unless there is an error in principle; quantum alone is not a ground
- VAT is a lawful disbursement properly claimable in a party and party bill of costs
- An objector must first request reasons from the taxing master under Rule 11 before filing a reference; otherwise the reference is premature
Court orders
#- 1.The reference (chamber summons) dated the 11th August 2022 has no merit and is hereby dismissed
- 2.The plaintiffs are to pay the 3rd defendant's costs in the reference
- 3.The taxing master's decision in the ruling of 20th July 2022 in respect of the bill of costs dated the 28th July 2021 is hereby upheld
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference from taxing master to a judge); Section 3A Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kariankei v Nkoitiko (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7938 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7938 (KLR)13 Nov 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathenge & another v Belle Holdings Limited & 2 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 54 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15942/eng@2023-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.