Chauri v District Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania West/East District & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 114 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3286 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed an advocate's challenge to a taxed legal bill because his objection failed to specify which items he disputed and was filed before reasons were issued.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the reference for non-compliance with Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The notice of objection to taxation dated 13th January 2025 did not specify the items objected to and was therefore invalid, rendering the reference incompetent.
Rule 11(1) of the ARO requires an objector to give notice in writing of the specific items of taxation objected to within fourteen days. The court, adopting the Court of Appeal's decision in Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu, held that a vague notice that does not specify items defeats the expeditious purpose of the reference procedure and is fatally defective, so the reference founded on it must be struck out as incompetent.
Prematurity of the reference filed before receipt of reasons for taxation
The reference, filed on 13th January 2025 the same day as the request for reasons and before the reasons were supplied, was premature and legally untenable.
Under Rule 11(2) of the ARO, a reference to a Judge may only be made upon receipt of the reasons for the taxing officer's decision. The Applicant requested reasons and filed the reference on the same day, before the reasons were availed. The court held that a reference, being akin to an appeal, can only be sustained on the reasons for taxation, and is premature and misconceived where lodged without them.
Whether a basis existed to interfere with the certificate of taxation on items 1 and 2
No basis was established: reasons for taxation were not procured, and item 2 attracted no award at all, being declined by the taxing officer.
The court reiterated the parameters in Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board and First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Gulab P. Shah for interference with a certificate of taxation, and the deference owed to taxing officers on quantum per Outa v Odoyo (SC). Without reasons, interference was impossible; further, since item 2 was declined outright, there was no award capable of being objected to.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of objection to taxation must specify the items of the bill of costs objected to; a notice that fails to do so is fatally defective and any reference founded on it is incompetent.
- A reference can only be filed after the taxing officer has supplied the reasons for taxation; a reference filed before receipt of the reasons is premature and incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application/Reference dated the January 13, 2025 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs of this Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1(A), 1(B), 3(A) and 79(G) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 21 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2020
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chauri v District Land Adjudication Officer, Tigania West/East District & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 114 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3286 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3286/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.