Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC A Miscellaneous Application No. E023 of 2024· [2025] KEELC 7064 (KLR)

Mwirebua v Mutonga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7064 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 October 2025
4,018 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Meru dismissed a challenge to taxed legal costs because it was filed in the wrong case file, ending any dispute over the fees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, through a Chamber Summons dated 15th September 2025 brought under sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, sought to set aside and review the taxing master's decision of 28th August 2025 taxing a party and party bill of costs arising from ELC Appeal No. E023 of 2024. The applicant contended that the taxing officer erred in ignoring monetary figures of Kshs.2,399,000/= in the plaint when assessing instruction fees, and in failing to award getting up fees for an appeal said to involve complex land ownership and Article 40 issues. The respondent objected that the reference was fatally incompetent because it was filed in a miscellaneous file rather than the parent appeal file in which the certificate of taxation was issued, and that the taxing officer applied the correct principles. The court framed two issues: competency of the application, and the correctness of the principle applied in taxing instruction fees. It held that Rule 11 requires a reference to be filed in the matter giving rise to the certificate of taxation, and that using a miscellaneous application went to the root of jurisdiction and was not curable under Article 159(2)(d), applying Scope Telematics, Kakuta Maimai Hamisi and Mumo Matemu. On the merits, it held that post-judgment taxation takes value from the judgment, not pleadings; the appeal concerned constructive trust with no monetary award, so the taxing officer properly exercised discretion, applying Peter Muthoka, Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and First American Bank v Gulab P. Shah. The Chamber Summons was dismissed as premature, misconceived and a nullity, with costs of Kshs.15,000/= awarded to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the reference filed by way of miscellaneous application

Holding

The reference was incompetent, premature, misconceived and a nullity; Rule 11 requires it be filed in the main appeal file where the certificate of taxation was issued, and the defect is not curable under Article 159(2)(d)

Reasoning

The certificate of taxation was issued in ELC Appeal No. E023 of 2024, and Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order requires a reference to be lodged in the matter giving rise to the certificate. Filing a fresh miscellaneous cause for a matter anchored in an existing substantive file is erroneous and illegal. The mode of invoking jurisdiction goes to the root of jurisdiction, a substantive irregularity that Article 159(2)(d) cannot cure, as confirmed in Scope Telematics and Kakuta Maimai Hamisi.

p. 4
02

Correct principle for taxing instruction fees in an appeal

Holding

The taxing officer rightly exercised discretion; where judgment has been delivered, the value is taken from the judgment, not the plaint, and no monetary award appeared in the appeal judgment

Reasoning

The appeal concerned constructive trust and its judgment carried no monetary award. Post-judgment taxation must be guided by the value discernible from the judgment or settlement, not the pleadings in the subordinate court. The applicant conceded the absence of value in the judgment, so the taxing officer properly exercised discretion and no error of principle was demonstrated warranting interference with the certificate of taxation.

p. 6
03

Getting up fees for the appeal

Holding

Getting up fees can only be awarded where the judge certifies the appeal as complex; no such certificate was issued

Reasoning

The respondent argued, without contradiction in the court's findings, that getting up fees on appeal are claimable only subject to a certificate by the judge at the conclusion of the appeal certifying complexity. In the absence of such a certificate, the taxing officer was right to tax off the getting up fees item.

Legal principles established

#
  • A reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order must be filed in the matter giving rise to the certificate of taxation; filing it by way of a fresh miscellaneous cause goes to the root of jurisdiction and is not curable under Article 159(2)(d)
  • Where taxation of a party and party bill occurs after judgment, the value of the subject matter is ascertained from the judgment or settlement, not the pleadings
  • A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless an error of principle is shown or the fee awarded is so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons Application dated 15th September 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the respondent
  3. 3.The costs are assessed and certified in the sum of Kshs.15,000/= only

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 34
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(2); Rule 11; Schedule VI
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d); Article 40
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3A and 3B

Cases cited (13)

  • Scope Telematics International Sales Limited v Stoic Company Limited & another
    [2017] KECA 545 (KLR)
  • Speaker of National Assembly vs. Njenga Karume
    [2008] 1 KLR 425
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 6 Ors
    [2010] eKLR
  • Kakuta Maimai Hamisi v Peris Pesi Tobiko & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • MUMO MATEMU Vs. TRUSTED SOCIETY OF HUMAN RIGHTS ALLIANCE & 5 OTHERS
    Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012
  • Fredrick Otieno Outa vs Jared Odoyo Okello
    (2017) eKLR
  • Peter Muthoka & another v Ochieng & 3 others
    [2019] KECA
  • Kenya Airports Authority vs Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates
    (2024) KESC
  • First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Gulab P. Shah & 2 others
    [2002] KEHC 1277 (KLR)
  • STEEL & PETROLEUM (E.A) LTD VS. UGANDA SUGAR FACTORY
  • Nanyuki Esso Service V Touring Cars Ltd
  • Thomas James Arthur V Nyeri Electricity Undertakers
  • Joreth V Kigano & Associates
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwirebua v Mutonga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC A Miscellaneous Application No. E023 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7064/eng@2025-10-13

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