Gichoho v Karweru t/a Karweru Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4199 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court nullified a lawyer's taxed fees of Ksh. 140,374.50 because the taxing officer failed to explain how she calculated them, ordering a fresh taxation before a different officer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interference with the taxing officer's discretion
The court may disturb the decision only on an error of principle, not on questions solely of quantum
The court restated the First American Bank principles: interference requires an error of principle or a manifestly excessive fee. Quantum alone is the taxing officer's domain. Here the taxing master failed to state how she arrived at Ksh. 140,374.50 and the legal fees paid did not reflect in the awarded costs, amounting to an error of principle justifying remittal for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer.
Competency of the reference (one day late; ruling allegedly not attached)
The delay of one day and the alleged omission did not warrant striking out the reference
The court noted 24 related files in the tax assessment dispute, the applicant acting in person, and that the ruling was in fact annexed to the supporting affidavit. A one-day delay would not sweep the applicant from the seat of justice, and the court has discretion under rule 11(4) to enlarge time.
Whether withheld monies from the underlying suit could be set off in the advocate-client bill
Such claims fall outside the taxation and cannot be counterclaimed or set off
The bill of costs is restricted to advocate-client costs. Any claim that the defendant's payment was withheld by the advocate must be pursued separately; it is not within the purview of the taxing master or the reference.
Legal principles established
#- A judge may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Where the taxing officer errs in principle, the normal practice is to remit the bill back for reassessment
- A taxing officer must disclose the basis on which she arrived at the taxed figure; discretion must be exercised on transparent, just criteria
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling and Order of the Taxing Officer dated 7.10.2024 be and is hereby set aside and the Bill of Costs dated 20.1.2021 remitted back for taxation by a taxing officer other than Hon. Angima, Deputy Registrar
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge against a taxing officer's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichoho v Karweru t/a Karweru Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4199 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 22.10.2024 (arising from taxation of Bill of Costs dated 20.1.2021; originating from Mukurweini PMCC No. 4 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4199/eng@2026-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.