Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedChamber Summons application dated 6th February 2025· [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)

Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 June 2025
1,912 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court set aside a Kshs 1.55 million instruction fee award because the taxing officer gave no reasons for the figure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference by way of Chamber Summons dated 6th February 2025 in which the Applicant, aggrieved by a Taxing Officer's ruling of 30th January 2025 awarding the 1st Respondent Kshs 1,551,400/- on item 1 (instruction fees) of a Party to Party Bill of Costs dated 15th May 2024, sought setting aside of that decision and re-taxation, or alternatively remittal to a different taxing officer. The Applicant argued that the proceedings taxed were limited to an application that was dismissed, that the main appeal was withdrawn with no orders as to costs, that the award was manifestly excessive, and that the Taxing Officer failed to give reasons or consider the Applicant's submissions. The 1st Respondent opposed, relying on the taxing officer's discretion under Rule 16 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the high value of the prime suit property on Ngong Road, and rent vouchers of Kshs 2,080,000/-. The court framed one issue: whether the taxing officer erred in awarding instruction fees as he did. Applying Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services, Kipkorir Titoo v Deposit Protection Fund Board, Peter Muthoka v Ochieng and Joreth v Kigano Associates, the court held that although the taxing officer had discretion where the subject-matter value was undetermined, he failed to give any reasons for arriving at Kshs 1,500,000/- as instruction fees, which constituted an error in principle. The reference was allowed: the decision on item 1 was set aside and the bill remitted to a different taxing officer for re-taxation, with costs to abide the outcome of the taxation. The ruling was delivered virtually on 20th June 2025 by Hon. T. Murigi, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding Kshs 1,551,400/- as instruction fees on item 1

Holding

Yes - the taxing officer failed to give reasons for the award, amounting to an error in principle

Reasoning

The court applied the classic taxation principles from Premchand Raichand and the Kipkorir Titoo test for interference on a reference. Although the taxing officer had discretion where the subject-matter value was undetermined, discretion must be exercised judiciously with reasons. Having found no explanation of how Kshs 1,500,000/- instruction fees was derived, the court held there was an error of principle and set aside the decision on item 1, remitting it for re-taxation.

p. 5
02

How the value of the subject matter is determined for instruction fees

Holding

Where taxation occurs before judgment, the pleadings form the basis of subject-matter value; after judgment, recourse is had to the judgment

Reasoning

The court cited Schedule 6 Paragraph (1)(b) and (d) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Court of Appeal decision in Peter Muthoka v Ochieng to establish that subject-matter value depends on the stage of proceedings, and noted the factors in Joreth v Kigano Associates for assessing instruction fees.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A taxing officer must give reasons for the award made on items presented for taxation; failure to give reasons is an error of principle warranting interference on a reference
  • On a reference from taxation, a judge will not interfere unless the taxing officer erred in principle, e.g. where costs are manifestly excessive

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30th January 2025 in regard to item No. 1 of the 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs be and is hereby set aside
  2. 2.The 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs dated 15th May 2024 is remitted to another taxing officer for re-taxation of Item 1
  3. 3.Costs to abide with the outcome of the taxation
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 6th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5335/eng@2025-06-20

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