Koskei v Sang (Suing as Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Esther Taprandich Sang) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 530 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court partially set aside a Kshs 936,545 costs ruling because the taxing officer used the wrong fee schedule and ignored a lower-scale directive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer's decision of 23rd April 2024 should be set aside
The decision was set aside in part: the taxation of items 1 and 2 was based on an error of principle and was remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer
The trial court had ordered costs to the plaintiff at the lower scale since the suit was undefended, yet the Taxing Officer taxed under Schedule 6 of the 2014 Order. The suit having been filed in 2012, the applicable order was the 2006 Remuneration Order. Taxing under the wrong remuneration order and contrary to the court's directive amounted to an error of principle. However, the court could only reconsider items 1 and 2, since no reasons were given for items 4 to 71 and the Applicant never sought such reasons.
Whether a different Taxing Officer should conduct the fresh taxation
Yes - the fresh taxation of items 1 and 2 is to be before a different Taxing Officer, who shall apply the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2006
Following the approach in Meir Mizrahi and Elijah Ireri, where taxation is founded on a wrong principle the bill is remitted for reconsideration, and in this case the Applicant had also raised impartiality concerns regarding the Taxing Officer. The court therefore directed remission to a different Taxing Officer applying the correct remuneration order.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not normally interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing the costs.
- Where no reasons appear on the face of a taxing officer's decision, those reasons must be furnished to enable the judge assess whether discretion was exercised on sound principles.
- A court on a reference can only reconsider items of a bill for which the taxing officer gave reasons.
- Taxation under the wrong version of the Advocates Remuneration Order is an error of principle warranting remission for fresh taxation.
Court orders
#- 1.The bill of costs dated 26th June, 2023 is remitted for fresh taxation of items No. 1 and 2 before a different Taxing Officer.
- 2.The Taxing Officer shall use the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2006.
- 3.The Applicant shall have costs of this reference.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (reference from a taxing officer's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koskei v Sang (Suing as Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Esther Taprandich Sang) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 530 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application dated 7th May, 2024 (arising from Kericho ELC Case No. 61 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/530/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.