Aldermen Limited v Shah & 3 others (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E004 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6680 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld a Taxing Officer's Kshs. 69,036 instruction fee ruling, confirming judges rarely disturb taxation unless an error in principle is proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Reference filed by the 1st Respondent was competent and filed within time
- 2.Whether the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 28th August 2024 in respect to the Party-Party Bill of Costs dated 14th October 2022 should be set aside and the said Bill of Costs taxed by a different Taxing Officer
Key legal issues
#Timeliness and competence of the Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Reference was filed within time: reasons were sought one day after the Ruling and the chamber summons was filed within fourteen days
Rule 11(1) requires notice of objection within fourteen days of the decision, and Rule 11(2) allows an application to a Judge within fourteen days of receipt of reasons. The record showed two letters dated 29th August 2024 seeking reasons and the chamber summons filed on 6th September 2024, satisfying both timelines. The Appellant's out-of-time objection therefore failed.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing instruction fees at Kshs. 69,036 without reference to the value of the subject matter
No error in principle: the Taxing Officer followed the unappealed direction of Wabwoto J to tax under Schedule 6 (Appeals), and the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the ruling dismissing the appeal
Wabwoto J had directed fresh taxation limited to item (1) in accordance with Schedule 6 on Appeals, and that decision was not appealed. The appeal emanated from a ruling with no indication of the value of the suit property. Applying Peter Muthoka and Joreth Ltd, where the value of the subject matter is not discernible from the judgment, the taxing officer may exercise discretion. The Taxing Officer therefore acted within his mandate.
Legal principles established
#- A court will only interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision where it is demonstrated that the Officer erred in principle
- Instruction fees are to be ascertained from the value of the subject matter ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; only where the value is not discernible may the taxing officer exercise discretion
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the 1st Respondent's Chamber Summons application dated 6th September 2024
- 2.Dismissal of the Appellant's Notice of Motion dated 16th September 2024
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- References from the decision of a Taxing Officer under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Setting aside/vacating the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 28th August 2024 and fresh taxation before a different taxing master
The Taxing Officer taxed the Bill as directed by Wabwoto J under Schedule 6 (Appeals) and did not err in principle; the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the decision dismissing the appeal
Striking out the 1st and 2nd Respondents' notices of objection to taxation dated 29th August 2024 and declaration that time for filing a Reference had expired
Reasons were sought one day after the Ruling and the reference was filed within fourteen days, complying with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstances, I find the 1st Respondent’s Chamber Summons application dated the 6th September 2024 and Appellant’s Notice of Motion dated 16th September 2024 unmerited and will dismiss them.
Each party to bear their own costs.
On reference to a Judge from the Taxation by the Taxing Oficer, the Judge will not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Taxing Oficer unless the Taxing Oficer, erred in principle in assessing the costs.
It is only where the value of the subject matter is neither discernible nor determinable from the pleadings, the judgment or the settlement, as the case may be, that the taxing oficer is permitted to use his discretion to assess instructions fees
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment variously describes the first taxation Ruling as delivered on 16th August 2023 and 16th August 2022
The judgment refers to the appellate decision as by 'Judge D. Mwangi' in submissions and 'Honourable Justice M.D Mwangi' in the affidavit, inconsistently
Parties' roles are used inconsistently - the 1st Respondent is also called the '1st Applicant' in the Appellant's submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aldermen Limited v Shah & 3 others (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E004 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6680/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.