Kihara v Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others (Petition E205 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1381 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found the taxing officer made errors in calculating legal fees and ordered the bill be recalculated afresh by a different taxing officer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the taxing master erred in allowing the bill at an amount higher than the amount taxed/proposed by the Petitioner
- 2.Whether the taxing master erred in failing to give specific reasons to each and every item allowed in the bill of costs
- 3.Whether the taxing master failed to take into account relevant factors and well settled principles of law in considering the quantum of the items in the bill of costs
- 4.Whether the Petitioner's/respondent's bill of costs should be taxed afresh
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master committed an error of principle
Yes - the taxing officer made errors of principle in ascertaining the subject matter and its value, and failed to give reasons for each item taxed
The court found the instruction fee was likely computed on the wrong value of the subject matter (gross salary of Kshs 5,720,000 versus net salary of Kshs 3,870,462). The taxing officer also gave no reasons for each item beyond stating the bill was taxed to scale. Under the authorities, failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter and failure to give reasons are errors of principle warranting the court's intervention.
Whether the court should interfere with the quantum awarded by the taxing master
The court interfered only because errors of principle were established; questions of pure quantum are for the taxing officer
Relying on Nanyuki Esso Service v Touring Cars Ltd, Kamunyori & Co. Advocates v Development Bank of Kenya, Kyalo Mbobu v Jacob Juma and Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority, the court reiterated that a judge will not lightly interfere with a taxing officer's award unless there is an error of principle or mis-exercise of discretion, which the applicant demonstrated here.
Whether the bill was increased upon taxation
No - the court found the bill of costs was itself drawn at Kshs 1,988,792 and the taxing master allowed it as taxed
The applicants alleged the taxing master allowed the bill at Kshs 1,988,792, higher than the Kshs 1,977,817 claimed in the bill. The court found on the record that the bill as drawn was Kshs 1,988,792 and the taxing master allowed it as taxed, so the allegation of an increase was factually incorrect.
Legal principles established
#- A judge will normally remit a matter to the taxing officer for reconsideration where there is an error of principle; an error of principle can be inferred where an award is manifestly excessive
- Failure to ascertain the correct subject matter or ascribe the correct value to the subject matter is an error of principle justifying interference with a taxing officer's decision
Court orders
#- 1.The matter is remitted back for taxation by another Taxing Master
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, under the Advocates Act, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya
Relief refused
#Stay of enforcement of the taxing master's ruling pending hearing and determination of the reference
Not expressly granted; the court instead remitted the matter for fresh taxation before another taxing master, rendering the stay moot
Fresh taxation of the bill by the court itself at Kshs. 278,937.41
The court found errors of principle but chose to remit rather than tax the bill afresh itself
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstances therefore the matter is hereby remitted back for taxation by another Taxing Master. It is so ordered.
it is reasonably clear to the court that the Taxing Oficer made errors of principle both in the ascertainment of the subject matter of the suit and in the value of the subject matter thereof. No reasons were given for each item taxed hence an error in principle which should be corrected.
It is a settled practice that a Judge will normally remit the matter to the Taxing Oficer for reconsideration where there is an error of principle.
The High Court or even this Court will not lightly interfere with an award of quantum by the taxing oficer, unless there was an error in principle or the discretion was improperly exercised, resulting in mis-justice
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment nowhere states the names of the parties or the case number; the bill is inconsistently described as taxed by 'the Petitioner' at Kshs 1,988,792 while elsewhere the bill is said to have proposed Kshs 1,977,817
Inconsistent figures in the applicant's pleadings: 'Kshs 1,977,781.7' versus 'Kshs 1,977,7817' versus 'Kshs 1,977,817.00' for the same bill
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kihara v Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others (Petition E205 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 29th February 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1381/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.