Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons application (Reference) undated on record; application erroneously dated 13/10/2024 instead of 13/11/2024· [2025] KEELC 5566 (KLR)

Richard & 15 others v Kotedia (Civil Suit 408 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5566 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
22 July 2025
GKG J Kemei
2,644 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court upheld a Kshs 650,000 instruction fee, ruling that courts will not disturb a Taxing Master's decision unless a clear error of principle is shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Chamber Summons reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, in which the Applicant sought to set aside the Taxing Master's decision of 31/10/2024 taxing the Respondents' Party and Party Bill of Costs, and to have the Bill remitted to a different Taxing Master. The grievance was confined to the instruction fee of Kshs. 650,000, said to be unreasonably low because the Taxing Master allegedly failed to consider a 2016 valuation of Kshs. 40 Million and an asserted appreciation of the suit property to Kshs. 70 Million. The Respondents did not enter appearance and the application was unopposed. The Court framed one issue: whether the Reference had merit. It noted that no Notice of Objection to taxation had been filed, which would ordinarily render the Reference incompetent, but since the Chamber Summons clearly identified the single item of grievance, the Court took it as properly filed. On the merits, the Court applied the established principle that interference with a Taxing Officer's decision requires an error of principle or a manifestly excessive or inadequate award. Relying on Joreth Ltd v Kigano and the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, the Court held that the value of the subject matter must be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. Here neither the pleadings nor the judgment ascribed a value; the Kshs. 40 Million figure arose from failed pre-suit negotiations and the Kshs. 70 Million appreciation was speculative. The Taxing Officer therefore properly exercised her discretion. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the absence of a Notice of Objection to taxation rendered the Reference incompetent

Holding

The Reference would be incompetent for want of a Notice of Objection, but the Court took the Chamber Summons as properly before it because it clearly identified the single item of grievance (instruction fee)

Reasoning

Rule 11 requires a notice of objection within 14 days specifying the items objected to. No such notice was filed. However, since the Chamber Summons clearly disclosed that the only grievance related to the assessment of the instruction fee, there was no vagueness, and the Court condoned the procedural default and determined the Reference on its merits.

p. 4
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees at Kshs. 650,000/= without relying on the Kshs. 70 Million valuation

Holding

No error of principle; the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings or judgment, and the claimed appreciation to Kshs. 70 Million was speculative

Reasoning

Under Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, subject matter value derives from pleadings, judgment or settlement. Here neither the pleadings nor the judgment ascribed a value; the 2016 valuation of Kshs. 40 Million was pre-suit negotiation, not adjudicated, and the appreciation to Kshs. 70 Million was speculative. The Taxing Officer therefore properly exercised discretion.

Legal principles established

#
  • A Court cannot interfere with a Taxing Master's decision unless there is an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to an injustice
  • The value of the subject matter for instruction fees is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and if not ascertainable the Taxing Master may exercise discretion

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application erroneously dated 13/10/2024 instead of 13/11/2024 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 6

Cases cited (8)

  • Twiga Motor Limited v Hon. Dalmas Otieno Anyango
    (2015) eKLR
  • Machira & Company Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & Another
    (2012) eKLR
  • Premchand Raichand Limited & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Another
    [1972] EA 162
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others
    (2002) EA 64
  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
  • Peter Muthoka & Another v Ochieng' & 3 Others
    Civil Appeal No. 328 of 2017; [2019] eKLR
  • Republic v Ministry of Agriculture and 2 Others; Ex-parte Muchiri W Njuguna & Others
    NRB HC Misc. Civil Appl. No. 621 of 2000 [2006] eKLR
  • Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates
    (Petition E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR) (2 August 2024)
On appeal from
Taxing Master (High Court)
Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23/08/2024, taxed 31/10/2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Richard & 15 others v Kotedia (Civil Suit 408 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5566 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application (Reference) undated on record; application erroneously dated 13/10/2024 instead of 13/11/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5566/eng@2025-07-22

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