Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 4701 (KLR)

FREDRICK MUTHAMIA M’IBERE v EVANGELINE KAJUJU MARETE & another

High Court of Kenya
23 June 2025
1,397 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan High Court confirmed that a Bill of Costs must go to the Deputy Registrar for taxation first; a Reference to a judge only comes after taxation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant filed a document dated 27th March 2024 described as a Reference, purportedly under Schedule VI of the Advocates Remuneration Order and a Ruling of 20th March 2024, but the document was in substance a Bill of Costs drawn under Rule 69 ARO, setting out items sought to be taxed. When the matter came before the Deputy Registrar on 27th July 2024, counsel disagreed on whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction. The Deputy Registrar referred the matter to the Judge by order of 6th March 2025. The court directed written submissions, which both parties filed. Applying Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Court of Appeal's decision in Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another [2012] KECA 245 (KLR), the court held that the Applicant had failed to appreciate the difference between a Bill of Costs and a Reference. A Reference arises only after taxation, upon a Certificate of Taxation, a notice of objection within 14 days, the taxing officer's reasons, and a chamber summons to a judge under Rule 11. None of these steps had occurred. The document was held to be a Bill of Costs falling within the jurisdictional remit of the Deputy Registrar as Taxing Officer. The court ordered the Bill of Costs placed before the Taxing Officer for taxation, a mention within two weeks, and that costs of these proceedings abide the outcome of the taxation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Distinction between a Bill of Costs and a Reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The document filed as a 'Reference' is in truth a Bill of Costs under Rule 69 and belongs before the Deputy Registrar for taxation; a Reference only arises post-taxation under Rule 11

Reasoning

The court examined the document and found that, though labelled a Reference, it contains a table of items sought to be taxed and is drawn in accordance with Rule 69 ARO. A Reference presupposes a completed taxation, a Certificate of Taxation, a notice of objection within 14 days, the taxing officer's reasons, and then a chamber summons to a judge under Rule 11. None of these steps had occurred, so the Judge lacked a matter for determination.

p. 2
02

Jurisdiction over the matter

Holding

The matter falls within the jurisdictional remit of the Deputy Registrar as Taxing Officer and does not fall for determination by the Judge

Reasoning

Since the document is a Bill of Costs for taxation, jurisdiction vests in the Taxing Officer. The court directed that the Bill be placed before the Taxing Officer for taxation in accordance with the applicable law, with a mention within two weeks.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Bill of Costs is drawn under Rule 69 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and is taxed by the Deputy Registrar as Taxing Officer
  • A Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order arises only after taxation, upon a notice of objection to taxation within 14 days of the Certificate of Taxation, followed by reasons and a chamber summons application to a judge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Bill of Costs dated the 27th March 2024 (but erroneously stated to be a Reference) shall be placed before the Taxing Officer for purposes of Taxation in accordance with the applicable law
  2. 2.The matter shall be mentioned before the Taxing Officer within 2 weeks of the delivery of the Ruling
  3. 3.The Costs attendant to this proceedings shall abide the outcome of the Taxation by the Taxing Officer

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule VI
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 69
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11

Cases cited (1)

  • Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another
    [2012] KECA 245 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates Remuneration Order, Schedule VI and Rule 11 (Bill of Costs within jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar as Taxing Officer)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "FREDRICK MUTHAMIA M’IBERE v EVANGELINE KAJUJU MARETE & another", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4701/eng@2025-06-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.