County Government of Trans Nzoia v Munene (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 8189 (KLR) (26 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 8189 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 1 OF 2017 CK NZILI, J NOVEMBER 26, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE ON PARTY AND PARTY BILL OF COSTS ARISING FROM LAND & ENVIRONMENT COURT AT KITALE ELC NO. 1 OF 2017 BETWEEN COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF TRANS NZOIA ................................. APPLICANT AND ANTONY MUNENE ........................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before the court is an application dated 10/9/2025. It seeks to set aside a taxation decision on a partyto-party bill of costs rendered by the taxing master on 28/8/2025, and upon setting it aside, the court be pleased to tax the said advocate’s client bill of costs dated 24/6/2025. 2. The grounds are set out on the face of the application and in a supporting afidavit sworn by Karani Grey, advocate, on 10/9/2025. The applicant deposes that he was representing the 6th defendant in this suit by filing a defence and counterclaim dated 16/6/2018, attached as annexure marked KOA(1), leading to a consent executed on 14/5/2024 settling the suit, annexed as KOA-(2). 3. In the said consent, the deponent states that the costs of the case were awarded to the 4th defendant, to be borne by the plaintifi and the 6th defendant equally, which was to be agreed, took place, and was settled. 4. The deponent deposes that he has been unable to engage and or agree with the 6th defendant to pay the costs, leading to an application to have them set aside as per the ruling annexed as KOA-(3). 5. The deponent deposes that there is no possibility that the 6th defendant will engage him, let alone pay any money towards the cost to the 4th defendant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8189/eng@2025-11-26 1
page 1 of 2
6. The deponent deposes that after attempts to engage the 6th defendant, the bill of costs was filed whereby the taxing master, in her ruling, attached as KOA-(4), declined jurisdiction, which decision is termed as erroneous in law, as regards to advocates-client bills of cost, especially when the 4th defendant’s bill of costs dated 24/6/2025 had not been opposed. 7. The applicant deposes that it has now filed a reference to this court under paragraph (11)(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. The applicant deposes that this court has the power to revise, vary, and re-tax the bill as presented. The chamber summons is opposed on the grounds of opposition dated 6/10/2025. 8. What was before the taxing master was an amended party-to-party bill of costs dated 3/6/2025, brought by the 4th defendant. After a preliminary objection raised on the competence of the Deputy Registrar to tax it, a ruling was delivered on 28/8/2025. Rule 50 of the Advocates Remuneration Order Schedule V1 relates to the assessment or taxation of costs in proceedings before the High Court. Schedule V1 is divided into two parts. Part A deals with party-to-party costs. 9. Any party dissatisfied with a taxing master’s ruling makes a reference to the High Court under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, within 14 days of the delivery. The Rule established a twopronged process. He has to give notice of the item of taxation and or seek reasons thereof under para. (11)(2) of the Rule. 10. A reference has to be made, and a chamber summons as per Paragraph 11 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order. In this matter, what the 4th defendant has done is to file a chamber summons in the same file and has assumed it to be a reference, hence asks the court to set aside the ruling dated 28/8/2024 and re-tax the bill. A reference has to be filed within 14 days. This means that it ought to have been filed on or before 12/9/2025. 11. What I have is not a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. See Evans Thiga Gaturu -vs- Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2012] eKLR. Jurisdiction is everything; without it, a court downs its tools. It must be properly invoked. The court cannot pronounce itself on the legality of the taxing master’s decision declining jurisdiction without compliance with the law. 12. The chamber summons dated 10/9/2025 is struck out with no orders as to costs. The court at this juncture exercises restraint on the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Registry on taxation matters. 13. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. In the presence of: Court Assistant – Dennis Karani for Applicant present Atudo for Respondent present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8189/eng@2025-11-26 2
page 2 of 2