AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2025] KEELC 7803 (KLR)
Kenya Harlequins Football Club v Quadco Two Hundred and Thirty-Two Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E098 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7803 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The Respondent in an pending appeal filed a chamber summons dated 14th May 2025 seeking review of its Bill of Costs taxed by a ruling dated 25th April 2025 at Ksh. 21,653. It argued that the Taxing Master erred in principle by failing to apply Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, and by not awarding instruction fees of KES 300,000 and getting-up fees of KES 100,000 commensurate with the complexity of defending an appeal, relying on authorities including Premchand Raichand, Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot. The application was unopposed but the court reviewed it on its merits. The court framed a sole issue: whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the instruction fees. Applying the settled principle that interference requires a clear error of principle or an award so manifestly excessive or low as to infer misdirection (Joreth, Kipkorir Titoo & Kiari, Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking), the court found that the taxed Bill related to an application dated 18th February 2022 seeking a stay of execution, which was dismissed for want of prosecution within an existing appeal that was itself never prosecuted. The Taxing Officer therefore properly taxed under 'matters arising during proceedings' in Schedule 6 and could not assume entitlement to costs of the appeal. The contention of complexity was held premature. The court found no basis to interfere with the taxation and dismissed the Chamber Summons with no order as to costs, since the application was undefended, while granting liberty to seek dismissal of the unprosecuted appeal if the Respondent wished to tax costs of the appeal.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees at Ksh. 21,653
Holding
No error of principle; the Taxing Officer correctly taxed the Bill under 'matters arising during proceedings' in Schedule 6 because the costs related to a dismissed stay application, not the substantive appeal
Reasoning
The taxed costs concerned an application dated 18th February 2022 seeking a stay of execution, dismissed for want of prosecution within an existing appeal that was itself never prosecuted. The Taxing Master could not assume the appeal costs were claimable. The claim that the matter was complex and warranted higher fees was premature given the interlocutory nature of the proceedings taxed. Interference with a Taxing Officer's discretion requires a clear error of principle, which was not demonstrated on the record.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with the discretion of a Taxing Officer merely because it would have reached a different conclusion; interference is justified only on a clear error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive or low as to justify an inference of misdirection.
- Where taxation relates to an interlocutory application dismissed within an unprosecuted appeal, the Taxing Master may tax only under 'matters arising during proceedings' and cannot assume entitlement to costs of the substantive appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 14th May 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs since the application was undefended
- 3.Liberty granted to the Respondent to move the court for dismissal of the unprosecuted appeal should it wish to tax costs on the appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from the decision of a Taxing Master under the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Harlequins Football Club v Quadco Two Hundred and Thirty-Two Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E098 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7803/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.