Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 812 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a challenge to a taxed costs award, confirming courts won't disturb a taxing officer's decision unless an error of principle is proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reference/review against the Taxing Officer's ruling of 26th November 2024 disclosed a basis for the court to interfere with the taxation
The application was not merited; the taxing master applied the correct scale and gave reasons for each item, and the applicant's proposed computation would amount to a double award.
The court noted an earlier ruling of Kshs. 1,125,205 by Hon Mbeja had been set aside for lack of reasons, and Hon E. Riany re-taxed at Kshs. 637,878.32 giving reasons. The applicant relied on Molonket, but the court found the applicant misapprehended paragraph 7 of that ruling: accepting the applicant's tabulation of graduated levels up to Kshs. 1,000,000 plus 2% of the balance would double-count the first million. Since no error of principle was established, the court would not disturb the quantum, quantum being the taxing officer's domain.
Whether the applicant's reliance on the Molonket decision warranted the higher graduated computation of instruction fees
The court found a misapprehension of paragraph 7 of the Molonket ruling; the decision did not support the applicant's layered tabulation.
In Molonket, Radido J held the taxing officer fell into error by simply arriving at a lump sum without explanation, applying the graduated scales. The present court distinguished that context, holding that adopting the applicant's arithmetic of separately awarding fees at each graduated level while also computing 2% on the balance would double-award costs on the first Kshs. 1 million of the judgment sum of Kshs. 17,197,443.
Legal principles established
#- A court interferes with a Taxing Officer's decision only where it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle; the court is not entitled to upset a taxation merely because it considers the amount high.
- The value of the subject matter for taxation ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where the taxing officer errs in principle, the judge should refer the bill back for taxation rather than re-tax it.
- Under Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, instruction fees are computed on a graduated basis at the levels of Kshs. 500,000/-, 750,000/-, 1,000,000/- and ultimately 2% of the balance decretal sum, and applying layered graduated caps to the same sum would produce a double award.
Court orders
#- 1.The application seeking review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's ruling dated 26th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- 3.It is so Ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction over a Taxing Officer's decision (reference against taxation under the Advocates Remuneration Order)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 812 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 812 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1821/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.