Aladin Investment Limited v Ouma & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3874 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa threw out a legal costs award riddled with duplicated and fictitious items, ordering the bill be taxed afresh.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer's decision on the 2nd respondent's party-to-party bill of costs was founded on errors of principle warranting interference.
Yes. The taxing officer failed to interrogate the bill, allowed duplicated and fictitious items (e.g. claims of personal travel to Nairobi to effect service when the file showed service by post), and thereby misdirected himself and improperly exercised his discretion.
The court compared the bill of costs with the original file in ELC 158 of 2014 and found discrepancies between claimed attendance/service and the affidavits of service showing service by post. It also identified multiple duplicated court attendance entries. Such failures amounted to taking into account irrelevant factors and omitting relevant ones, an error of principle that entitled the court to interfere and set aside the award, remitting the disputed items for fresh taxation.
Whether the applicant's submissions in opposition to the bill of costs, filed on 03.06.2024 but not considered by the taxing officer, could be taken into account on the reference.
Although ignoring the submissions was not itself a ground for setting aside the taxation, the court would consider them as pointing to issues the taxing master ought to have considered.
The court noted the taxing officer had held the bill unopposed despite the applicant's timely submissions. While that omission alone did not invalidate the decision, the submissions highlighted discrepancies and duplications in the bill, and the court therefore took them into account in assessing whether the taxation was vitiated by error of principle.
Who should bear the costs of the reference.
The applicant, having succeeded, was awarded costs against the 2nd respondent.
Applying the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event and a successful party ordinarily receives costs unless there is good reason to depart from that rule. The court found no such reason, so the 2nd respondent, who unsuccessfully opposed the reference, was ordered to pay the costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle, or that the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.
- Costs follow the event; a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court, for good reason, directs otherwise.
Court orders
#- 1.The decision or award of the taxing officer dated 15.05.2024 on the bill of costs dated 27.11.2023 is set aside.
- 2.The respondent's party-to-party bill of costs dated 27.11.2023 be taxed afresh except for items no. 1, 2 and 306 which were correctly taxed.
- 3.The 2nd respondent to bear the cost of this application.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(1) and (2), 79 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014; Section 51(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 48 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aladin Investment Limited v Ouma & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E029 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (chamber summons dated 31.05.2024; related to ELC 158 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3874/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.