Korir & another v Ministry of Education & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 56 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 4363 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a challenge to taxed legal costs because the claimant used the wrong court procedure instead of the required Rule 11 process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Correct procedural avenue for challenging a taxing master's decision
Challenges lie only by Reference under Rule 11 ARO by Chamber Summons; a Notice of Motion seeking to set aside a certificate of costs is incompetent
Rule 11 ARO prescribes notice of objection within 14 days, reasons, then a Reference by Chamber Summons within a further 14 days, with power to enlarge time. The plaintiff filed no timely objection, no Reference, and no extension application, and instead moved by Notice of Motion. Following Machira and Gacau Kariuki, the court held the motion defective for bypassing the prescribed procedure.
Whether the taxing master's ruling was devoid of reasons
The ruling was self-explanatory and contained reasons; disagreement with reasons is not absence of reasons
The court found the ruling set out the taxing officer's reasoning on the objected items, negating any obligation to furnish fresh reasons under Rule 11(2). The plaintiff's own ground that the reasons 'amount to no reason' acknowledged reasons were given. Authorities confirm that where reasons appear on the face of the decision, failure to furnish further reasons is not fatal and insufficiency is a matter for a reference.
Whether the taxing master erred in applying ARO 2014 and in assessing instruction fees
The bill was expressly taxed under the ARO 2014 as amended, and the instruction fee of KShs.225,000/- was properly assessed in exercise of discretion where the subject value was not ascertainable
The ruling expressly stated the bill would be taxed under the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendments) Order 2014, contradicting the plaintiff's assertion. On instruction fees, Joreth and Peter Muthoka permit discretionary assessment where value is not ascertainable from pleadings, judgment or settlement; the taxing master considered the nature, importance and complexity of the suit and applied the 75% provision. The figure was neither excessive nor based on an error of principle.
Applicability of the Fair Administrative Actions Act to taxation
The FAA Act is not the governing law for grievances on taxation of costs; the ARO applies
The court held the plaintiff was casting a wide net by invoking both the ARO and the FAA Act, but the reliefs under the two regimes are governed by different rules and principles. Taxation of costs is governed exclusively by the Advocates Remuneration Order, so the FAA Act could not rescue an otherwise defective application.
Legal principles established
#- Any complaint about a decision of a taxing officer, whether of law or on the taxation of any item, must be ventilated by way of a Reference to a judge under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, not by an application to set aside the decision
- Where a specific procedure is provided for addressing a grievance, that procedure must be strictly complied with
- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless it is shown that he was wrong in principle or the amount was manifestly excessive or low
- Where reasons for a taxation are contained in the ruling itself, there is no need to seek further reasons, and the sufficiency of reasons may itself ground a reference
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2023 is dismissed with costs to the 3rd Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Remuneration Order, Rule 11 (objection to decision on taxation); application mounted under the Fair Administrative Actions Act (rejected)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korir & another v Ministry of Education & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 56 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 4363 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4363/eng@2024-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.