Cool Rivers Hotel Limited v Chege (Cause 304 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 1969 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application to set aside the taxed costs is merited despite non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The application is not merited. The Applicant never filed an objection under Rule 11, did not identify the specific items opposed, and the bill was drawn to scale with taxation principles properly applied.
Rule 11 requires a dissatisfied party to notify the taxing officer in writing of specific items objected to within 14 days and then file a chamber summons. The Applicant took no such step between 24th September 2024 and 10th April 2025. The court examined Schedule 4 and found it deals with trademarks while Schedule 6 applies to High Court (ELRC) costs, and confirmed the disputed items were drawn to scale. The complaint about the 69% cost-to-award ratio was rejected because the decretal sum and certificate of costs are distinct amounts.
Whether the taxing officer erred by applying an omnibus approach rather than taxing each item individually under Schedule 4
No error. The court confirmed the bill was drawn to scale under the correct schedule (Schedule 6, not Schedule 4) and that the contested items were properly taxed since the Applicant did not contest the matter.
The court examined Schedule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and found it deals with trademarks, whereas Schedule 6 governs costs in the High Court (ELRC). The items contested by the Applicant were drawn to scale as the matter was not contested by the Applicant. The court further found the taxation principles in Premchand Raichand were followed.
Whether costs amounting to 69% of the decretal sum demonstrate misdirection by the taxing officer
No. The award may not be commensurate with the bill of costs depending on services rendered; the Applicant did not indicate the specific items opposed, so the application was not proved on a balance of probability.
The court held that the decretal sum awarded by Nderitu J in the main suit and the certificate of costs taxed by the taxing officer are two distinct amounts, computed on different bases. Costs are assessed according to services rendered up to conclusion of the matter and in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Act, not as a proportion of the award.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs unless the officer misdirected himself on a matter of principle, or the quantum is manifestly extravagant.
- A party dissatisfied with a taxing officer's decision must comply with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order by notifying the officer of the specific items objected to within 14 days before filing a reference.
- The decretal sum awarded by the court and the certificate of costs taxed by the taxing officer are two distinct amounts.
Court orders
#- 1.The application to review or set aside the taxed bill of costs is dismissed
- 2.Each party will meet their respective costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cool Rivers Hotel Limited v Chege (Cause 304 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 1969 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 304 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1969/eng@2025-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.