Kotut v Kipngok & Another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6133 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reference offended Rule 11 of the ARO as to the requirement to seek reasons and the 14-day timeline
The reference was competent. Reasons were already contained in the ruling so no fresh reasons were needed; the one-day delay was not inordinate and the court exercised its discretion under Rule 11(4) to deem the reference filed in time.
Rule 11(1) is permissive ('may'). Where the taxing master's ruling is self-explanatory, as per Evans Thiga Gaturu and Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara, seeking fresh reasons is unnecessary. The court verified on the e-filing portal that the application dated 30th April 2024 was filed on 2nd May 2024 - 15 days after the ruling of 17th April 2024, a delay of only one day. Though no extension of time was sought, the court invoked Rule 11(4) and deemed the reference duly filed on time.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in assessing instruction fees and getting up fees
Yes. The Bill of Costs arose from garnishee proceedings, not the appeal, so the prescribed garnishee fees under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 6A applied, and no judge's certificate supported a getting up fee.
The costs taxed were those awarded in dismissed garnishee proceedings for KShs.390,000/-, not costs of the appeal over land valued at KShs.52,000,000/-. Joreth Ltd valuation principles therefore did not apply, as garnishee instruction fees are prescribed. Getting up fees under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 6A require a certificate from the judge trying the appeal; none was issued, and the bill related to a post-judgment application. The award was manifestly excessive and exorbitant.
Legal principles established
#- A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the costs.
- Where the ruling of the Taxing Master is self-contained and gives reasons, there is no need for the objector to seek fresh reasons before filing a reference.
- Garnishee proceedings instruction fees are prescribed under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 6A of the ARO and are not to be assessed on the value of the subject matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Master's decision made on 17th April, 2024 in ELC Appeal No. 32 of 2019 awarding the Respondent costs of KShs.280,391/- and all consequential orders thereto be and is hereby set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs shall be taxed afresh by another Taxing Master other than Hon. Kiptoo, Principal Magistrate
- 3.The Applicant shall have the costs of this application
- 4.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 22nd May, 2024 is dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge from a Taxing Master's decision; Rule 11(4) power to enlarge time
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.
- Chaudri & Associates Advocates v Robert Bosch East Africa Limited (Miscellaneous Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)15 Sept 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kotut v Kipngok & Another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6133 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Appeal No. 32 of 2019 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6133/eng@2024-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.