Hezekiah v Gor Construction and Hardware Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court slashed an advocate's taxed bill from Kshs. 39,005 to Kshs. 6,300 after finding costs were awarded twice for the same applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time for filing a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The court exercised its discretion to extend time where the applicant, acting in person, promptly sought correction of errors upon learning the taxing officer was functus officio, writing to the taxing officer on 18th September 2024 and filing the reference within days of receiving the officer's advice on 16th October 2024.
The reference was filed 55 days after the taxation ruling, beyond the 14-day period. The applicant explained the delay in a supplementary affidavit: he mistakenly believed the taxing officer could correct errors, wrote to him twice, and filed the application soon after receiving the officer's letter of 2nd October 2024 advising that a reference be filed. His diligence in pursuing correction persuaded the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.
Double taxation of costs of the application dated 10th November 2022
The award of Kshs. 3,000/- for the application dated 10th November 2022 was made in error because the costs of that application (filed as ELCMISC No. E034 of 2022) had already been taxed in that file against the party who brought it.
The applicant contended the application was the same as ELCMISC No. E034 of 2022, in which his costs as a co-respondent could not be taxed since costs had already been taxed against the applicant in that matter. The respondent filed no replying affidavit, and the contention was unrebutted. The court therefore found the taxation of that application in the primary suit unjustified.
Contradictory taxation of costs of the application dated 11th September 2019
The award of Kshs. 22,400/- for items 21-36 was erroneous because the taxing officer had already found the costs of that application were catered for in the party and party costs and taxed them off.
Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the taxing officer's ruling contradicted each other: in paragraph 5 the costs were taxed off as settled within party and party costs, yet in paragraph 7 the officer awarded Kshs. 1,400/- each for 16 items relating to the same application. The respondent did not rebut the applicant's allegations. The court agreed the officer could not award costs twice for the same application.
Whether the court should remit the bill for fresh taxation or determine quantum itself
The court declined to remit the bill and corrected the errors itself, taxing the bill at Kshs. 6,300/-.
Relying on authority that a judge may deal with the matter himself where the justice of the case requires, and that remitting would waste judicial time and saddle the parties with unnecessary costs, the court found remittance purposeless given the narrow, arithmetically ascertainable objections, and proceeded to determine the correct total with finality.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on reference from a taxing officer will not normally interfere with the taxing officer's exercise of discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle
- Awarding costs which are not due and failure to correctly compute the costs awarded amount to an error of principle
- A taxing officer who makes a finding that costs were raised and taxed in a party and party bill cannot again award costs for the same application in a subsequent bill
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the taxing officer dated 4th September 2024 is set aside in respect of the taxation of Bill No. 2 item 1 and Bill No. 4 items 21-36 of the bill of costs dated 1st July 2024, and the said items are taxed off
- 2.The taxation of the other items in the bill of costs dated 1st July 2024 shall remain undisturbed
- 3.The bill of costs dated 1st July 2024 is taxed at a total of Kshs. 6,300/-
- 4.Each party shall bear its costs of the reference
- 5.Time for filing the reference extended up to 30th October 2024, with the reference deemed filed within time
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) and 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order - reference to a judge from taxation by a taxing officer, with power to enlarge time
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hezekiah v Gor Construction and Hardware Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 30th October 2024 in Kisumu MCELC No. 25 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1107/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.