Kenneth Mwangi Mburu and Associates t/a KM Mburu & Associates v Javisapa Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8172 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court set aside a costs ruling after a taxing officer priced a lawyer's fees based on work done by a different law firm, ordering fresh taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reference was filed prematurely for non-compliance with Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The reference was properly before the court because the applicant gave written notice of objection by letter dated 19/12/2024, to which the taxing officer responded on 20/12/2024.
Rule 11(1) requires a party objecting to a taxing officer's decision to give notice in writing within fourteen days of the items objected to. The court examined the applicant's letter dated 19/12/2024 and was satisfied the legal threshold was met, which explained why the taxing officer furnished her reasons on 20/12/2024. The respondent's prematurity objection therefore failed.
Whether the taxing officer's assessment of items 1, 31 and 32 was erroneous and should be set aside
The taxing officer erred fundamentally by assessing instruction fees, getting up fees and the 50% increase on the basis of an application dated 15/03/2024 filed by the successor advocates rather than the applicant's own work; the ruling was set aside and the bill remitted for taxation before a different taxing officer.
Both parties acknowledged that the taxing officer relied on the wrong application. The court held the error was not a clerical slip curable under the slip rule (Section 99 CPA) because the officer assessed instructions never issued to the applicant. The error was fundamental, depriving the applicant of fair reimbursement, and warranted remittal for fresh taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A court on a reference will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is founded on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so clearly excessive as to suggest a mistake of principle.
- An error in taxing a bill based on instructions never issued to the advocate is a fundamental error of principle, not a clerical slip correctable under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 8/01/2025 is allowed with costs to the applicant.
- 2.The advocate-client bill of costs dated 9/09/2024 is remitted for taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. M.A. Otindo (Ms.) Deputy Registrar.
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer / Deputy Registrar, Machakos
- Advocate-client bill of costs dated 9/09/2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1)-(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenneth Mwangi Mburu and Associates t/a KM Mburu & Associates v Javisapa Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8172 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 8/01/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8172/eng@2025-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.