Seii v LVCT Health (Cause 1452 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2465 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a taxing officer's costs ruling, confirming courts rarely disturb taxation decisions unless an error of principle or plainly excessive award is shown.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer's ruling of 6th May 2025 disclosed an error of principle warranting the court's interference
No error of principle was demonstrated; the taxing master gave a reasoned ruling and correctly applied Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, calculating instruction fees on the reviewed judgment sum of Kshs. 3,704,155.10
The court adopted the principles in First American Bank v Shah and Joreth Ltd v Kigano that interference is only warranted on an error of principle or manifestly excessive fees. It found the taxing master had given reasons for each item and correctly computed instruction fees using the first Kshs. 1 million at Kshs. 120,000 plus 2% of the balance above Kshs. 1 million. The applicant's graduated-scale tabulation would result in a double award of costs on the first Kshs. 1 million, as this court had previously held in a similar application by the same law firm.
Whether instruction fees are to be computed on graduated levels as urged by the applicant
Rejected; the applicant's tabulation would amount to a double award of costs on the first Kshs. 1 million of the judgment sum
The court relied on its own recent decision in George Nyota Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd, a similar application by the same law firm, where it found a misapprehension of the taxing master's ruling. Accepting the applicant's graduated computation from 0 to 1,000,000 and then awarding 120,000 for the first million would double-count costs. The taxing master's method of Kshs. 120,000 for the first million plus 2% of the balance was correct.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise but a matter of opinion based on experience; the court will not interfere merely because the award seems too high or too low
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.It is so Ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own taxation references (Advocates Remuneration Order)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Seii v LVCT Health (Cause 1452 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2465 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons Application dated 13th May 2025 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2465/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.