Muliango v Masaka (Cause 989 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2147 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it will not disturb a Taxing Officer's costs ruling unless you point to a specific error of principle or prove the fees are grossly excessive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated grounds for the court to interfere with the Taxing Officer's ruling
The application was unmerited; the Applicant failed to show any error of principle or that the taxed costs were manifestly excessive, and did not isolate any contested item
The court held that a party challenging taxation must demonstrate a specific error of principle or manifest excessiveness amounting to injustice. The Applicant's grounds made no reference to any error of principle, tendered no evidence of objection to specific items, and provided no computation to show excessiveness. The Taxing Officer's statement that items were drawn to scale was sufficient justification, and instructions and getting-up fees had in fact been taxed off.
Whether the Applicant complied with the procedural steps under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The Applicant wrote to the Deputy Registrar seeking reasons but there was no evidence the reasons were provided; nonetheless the application failed on substance
The court noted that Rule 11 objection procedures give the Taxing Officer an opportunity to justify the taxation and guide the court. Although the Applicant's letter dated 22nd March 2024 sought reasons and none appeared on record, the application still failed because the Applicant did not fault any item in the Bill of Costs or demonstrate any error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless it is shown the decision was based on an erroneous principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive
- Taxation of costs is a special jurisdiction reserved to the Taxing Officer, and the court enters the arena only by way of reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
- Failure by the Taxing Officer to give reasons is not fatal to a reference as the reasons are ordinarily contained in the ruling itself
- Submissions do not constitute evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 26th March, 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muliango v Masaka (Cause 989 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2147 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 989 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2147/eng@2024-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.