Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEELC 1749 (KLR)

Onkoba v Jeptoo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous (Reference) Application E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1749 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
17 March 2026
GOG.M.A. Ong'ondo
1,590 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed a challenge to taxed costs, confirming courts rarely overturn a Taxing Officer unless they made a clear legal error or awarded obviously excessive costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference by way of Chamber Summons dated 1st March 2024, brought under section 11 of the Advocates Act and paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, seeking to set aside a Taxing Officer's ruling of 20th February 2024 in which the respondent's party-and-party bill of costs dated 4th April 2023 was taxed at Kshs. 170,550/-. The applicant, through Kalya and Company Advocates, alleged that the Taxing Master erred in principle by failing to consider the value and simplicity of the subject matter and relevant factors, producing an excessive award, and sought taxation afresh, alternatively by a different taxing master, proposing a figure of Kshs. 53,000/-. The respondent, through Faith Aketch, opposed, maintaining that the Taxing Officer correctly used the adjudged value of Kshs. 5,000,000/- and struck off amounts from the bill. The High Court at Kapsabet (Ong'ondo J) held that a reference is a review, not a rehearing, and that interference is warranted only on an error of principle or manifest excess. The court found that the value of the subject matter was disclosed in the ruling, that relevant principles including the nature and complexity of the claim were applied, and that the Taxing Officer exercised discretion judicially. Adopting the principle that there are no mathematical formulae in taxation and each case turns on its own circumstances, the court found no justification to disturb the taxation. The reference was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 17th March 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Error of principle / manifestly excessive costs as the threshold for interference

Holding

The Taxing Officer applied no wrong principle and the costs were not manifestly excessive

Reasoning

The court noted the value of the subject matter (Kshs. 5,000,000/-) was disclosed and considered, along with the nature, complexity and conduct of proceedings. Striking off of amounts (Kshs. 11,900/- cumulative) showed the officer weighed the bill against the Advocates Remuneration Order. Judicial discretion was properly exercised.

p. 4
02

Scope of a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The reference is a reconsideration of the principles applied, not a rehearing of the taxation

Reasoning

The court framed its duty as examining whether the Taxing Officer took into account relevant factors including the value of the subject matter and whether discretion was exercised judicially rather than capriciously, citing Benson Adega v Kibos Distillers (Supreme Court).

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Officer's assessment of costs unless there is an error of principle or the costs are manifestly excessive
  • A reference against a taxing decision is a review, not a rehearing; the test is whether the Taxing Officer exercised discretion judicially
  • There are no mathematical formulae for taxation; each case is decided on its own peculiar circumstances

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference dated 1st March 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 11 of the Advocates Act (Cap 16) and paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference/review of Taxing Officer's decision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onkoba v Jeptoo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous (Reference) Application E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1749/eng@2026-03-17

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