Eveline (Suing on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Peter Waugh) v Kiiru & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a challenge to taxed legal costs, confirming that missing the strict 14-day objection procedure is fatal to a costs Reference.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error of principle by the taxing master in instruction fees, folios, copies, service and attendance items
The court found the taxing master's tabulated calculations were not shown to be erroneous; the reference disclosed no basis for re-taxation
The court set out the recognised grounds for interference (wrong schedule, mis-valued subject matter, double-counting, failure to consider relevant factors, manifestly excessive or inadequate awards, failure to give reasons) but found nothing in the material before it warranting interference with the taxing master's pronounced calculations, and declined to substitute its own assessment.
Procedural compliance with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Reference procedure requires written notice of objection within 14 days; the record did not show that reasons were sought and refused, so the failure-to-give-reasons ground could not sustain the Reference
The court outlined the multi-step procedure: notice to the taxing master specifying objected items within 14 days, transmittal of reasons, then a Chamber Summons Reference within 14 days of receipt. It noted nothing indicated the Applicant sought reasons before filing the Reference, so that ground was unavailable.
Deference to the taxing master's discretion
Judicial restraint applies; a judge cannot overturn an award merely because they would have awarded a different amount
Relying on Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority, the court held that taxation is a discretionary expert function, and intervention is limited to demonstrable error of principle or awards so excessive or low as to imply such error.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing master's decision is challenged not by appeal but by a Reference to a Judge under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, whose multi-step timelines are a jurisdictional condition precedent
- A judge will not interfere with a taxing master's award absent a demonstrable error of principle or an award so excessive or low that an error of principle must be inferred
- Failure to give written notice of objection to the taxing master within 14 days of the ruling extinguishes the right to challenge the bill
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference is struck out with costs
- 2.The items as taxed by the taxing master are left to stand
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - Reference to a Judge challenging a taxing master's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eveline (Suing on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Peter Waugh) v Kiiru & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. 74 OF 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5132/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.