Ruai Central 54 Association (Suing Through Julius Ntorono Kubai -Chairman , Erastus Nyambutu Migosi - Secretary,Beatrice Mumbi Njoroge - Treasurer) v Ng’ang’a & another (Miscellaneous Cause 694 of 2014) [2024] KEELC 4292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a bid to overturn a Ksh.643,470 costs award, confirming courts rarely interfere with a taxing master's ruling.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing instruction fees at Ksh.600,000/= where the value of the subject matter was unascertainable
The taxing master did not err; she properly exercised her discretion under the Advocates Remuneration Order, considering the importance of the matter to the parties and the length of time the matter had been in court.
The taxing master expressly recorded that the value of the subject matter was unascertainable from the judgment and pleadings, and thus exercised her discretion per the Advocates Remuneration Order and Joreth Limited v Kiganjo Associates. Relevant factors, including importance of the matter and duration of proceedings, were considered, so there was no omission of relevant factors or reliance on irrelevant ones warranting interference.
Whether the 1st defendant could be exempted from paying costs because the judgment found he had good title and no fraud was proved against him
No. Judgment was entered against both defendants jointly and severally with costs; the taxing master's role is simply to tax the bill and she cannot revisit whether the award of costs was correct. Any such challenge should have been taken up before the court.
The court held that the taxing master correctly declined to examine the propriety of the costs award. The applicant's grievance about the judgment's finding of joint and several liability was a matter for the court, not the taxing master, and no basis for review of the taxation ruling was established.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive or manifestly low as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- The role of the taxing master, once the court has awarded costs, is simply to tax the bill; the taxing master cannot inquire into whether the award of costs was correct.
- The value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion to assess just instruction fees considering the nature and importance of the matter, interests of the parties and conduct of proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 18th July 2022 having no merit is hereby dismissed
- 2.The Taxing Master's ruling of 4th July 2022 taxing the bill at Ksh.643,470/= is not disturbed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court on review of a Taxing Master's ruling (review of party and party bill of costs taxed on 4th July 2022)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruai Central 54 Association (Suing Through Julius Ntorono Kubai -Chairman , Erastus Nyambutu Migosi - Secretary,Beatrice Mumbi Njoroge - Treasurer) v Ng’ang’a & another (Miscellaneous Cause 694 of 2014) [2024] KEELC 4292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4292/eng@2024-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.