Boyambi ((Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late TERESIA BOYANI ERENE)) v Ngaira & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4096 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a Kshs. 476,310 costs award because the taxing officer approved the bill without properly checking it or explaining why.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether taxing a bill wholesale as 'unopposed' without itemized reasons violates the law
Yes - the Taxing Master's wholesale allowance of the bill without reasons breached Rule 11(2) of the ARO and Article 47, amounting to a clerical endorsement rather than a taxation
Rule 16 of the ARO imposes a non-delegable duty of scrutiny regardless of opposition. Rule 11(2) requires the Taxing Officer to record and forward reasons for the decision. As a judicial officer, the Taxing Master is bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 to give written reasons. Simply writing 'unopposed' and granting the grand total as prayed was a flagrant violation and a procedural breach of the Applicant's right to administrative fairness.
Whether separate instruction and getting-up fees for the main suit and counterclaim constituted double-charging
Yes - allowing two undiscounted instruction fees of Kshs. 150,000/= each and two getting-up fees of Kshs. 50,000/= each where both actions arose from identical facts and a single consolidated record was an error of principle
While a counterclaim is a cross-suit, it does not give rise to a separate stand-alone second judgment and never stands on its own, as held in Koross v Komen. A properly directed Taxing Master was bound to interrogate the material overlap between the actions. Further, under Schedule 6(A)(2), a getting-up fee is a derivative mechanism calibrated at one-third of the allowed instruction fee and cannot be awarded as an arbitrary self-standing lump sum.
Whether the instruction and mention fees accorded with the prescribed scales
No - no application of the scale yields a basic fee of Kshs. 150,000/= on the proven values, and the fiat Kshs. 2,300/= mention fees exceeded the Schedule 6(A)(7) caps
Under Schedule 6(A)(1)(b), values of Kshs. 500,000/= and 900,000/= yield basic scale fees of Kshs. 75,000/= and 120,000/= respectively. Any enhancement under Joreth Ltd v Kigano required explicit reasons, which were not given. The ARO scales reflect actual duration of active court engagement, not administrative waiting times; routine mentions fall under Schedule 6(A)(7)(a) or (c) at lower rates.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in allowing unproved disbursements and a facial arithmetical error
Yes - disbursements were allowed without receipts or vouchers contrary to Rule 74, and Item 31's arithmetic error proved the bill was never read
Under Rule 74, disbursements are only legally allowed upon production of receipts or vouchers save for standard court filing fees. The CTS digitizes record-tracking but does not exempt the Taxing Officer from verifying payments on the electronic file. The Item 31 error (110 folios @ 50 claimed as 900) was facial proof that the bill passed through the Taxing Office untouched by judicial thought.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed bill of costs does not relieve the Taxing Officer of the non-delegable statutory duty to scrutinize each item and give reasons
- Where a taxing master errs in principle, the judge should refer the bill back for taxation by the same or another taxing officer with appropriate directions
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Master's Ruling dated 12th February 2026 taxing the Respondents' Party and Party Bill of Costs at Kshs. 476,310/=, alongside the subsequent Certificate of Taxation, is set aside in its entirety
- 2.The Defendants' Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 26th November 2025 is remitted back for fresh taxation on its merits before a different Taxing Master
- 3.The costs of the Reference application are awarded to the Plaintiff/Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Boyambi ((Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late TERESIA BOYANI ERENE)) v Ngaira & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4096 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 26th February, 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4096/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.