Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 22nd May 2025 (Reference)· [2025] KEELC 7375 (KLR)

Njoroge t/a M/S Agnes W. Njoroge and Co. Advocates v Mwicigi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E250 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7375 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
24 October 2025
1,127 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed a challenge to a Kshs 2 million taxation because the claimant couldn't prove a Kshs 680,000 payment related to this case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference by way of a Chamber Summons dated 22nd May 2025, brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Paragraph/Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Amendment Order, seeking to vacate or set aside a ruling of the Taxing Officer, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat (DR), delivered on 8th May 2025 taxing an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 12th November 2024 at Kshs. 2,013,333.33. In the alternative, the Applicant sought remittal of the bill to a different Taxing Officer. The Applicant, Caroline Njeri Mwicigi, argued that the Taxing Officer made an arithmetic error by failing to deduct Kshs. 680,000/= already paid as legal fees, which would have reduced the taxed sum to Kshs. 1,333,333.33, and that he failed to give reasons for taxing items 3-42 of the bill. The Respondent opposed, contending the Kshs. 680,000/= was paid in a different matter between the parties and that the application was defective for not specifying contested items. The court framed a single issue: whether the impugned ruling should be set aside. Applying the settled principles in Kipkorir Titoo & Kiari Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board and First American Bank of Kenya v Shah, that interference requires an error of principle or manifestly excessive fees, the court found the acknowledgement letter of 18th October 2023 did not specify which case the payment related to, so payment in the parent suit was not proven on a balance of probabilities. The ruling's statement that the items were taxed as drawn to scale sufficed on reasons. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle by failing to deduct Kshs. 680,000/= paid on account

Holding

The Taxing Officer was correct not to deduct the amount because the payment was not proven to relate to this matter

Reasoning

The Applicant relied on a letter of 18th October 2023 acknowledging receipt of Kshs. 680,000/= on account. However, the letter did not specify which High Court or Court of Appeal case the payment related to. The Respondent contended the payment was made in a different matter. The court held the payment in Nairobi Civil App. No. 24 of 2008 was not proven on a balance of probabilities, so there was no error of principle.

p. 3
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred by failing to give reasons for taxing items 3-42 of the bill of costs

Holding

No error of principle; the impugned ruling shows the items were taxed as drawn to scale

Reasoning

The Applicant complained that the Taxing Officer failed to give reasons for allowing items 3-42. A perusal of the impugned ruling showed the Taxing Officer stated that the rest of the items were drawn to scale and taxed as drawn. The court found this adequate and no error of principle regarding those items.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • On a reference from taxation, a judge will not interfere with the Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle or the costs allowed are manifestly excessive
  • A party alleging that payments on account should be deducted from taxed costs must prove that the payment related to the matter taxed, on a balance of probabilities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 22nd May 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
On appeal from
null
null
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Paragraph/Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njoroge t/a M/S Agnes W. Njoroge and Co. Advocates v Mwicigi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E250 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7375 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 22nd May 2025 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7375/eng@2025-10-24

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