Mbugua

4. It is her case that the Deputy Registrar failed to take into account the applicable scale under Schedule 6, disregarded her written submissions, and relied on irrelevant considerations while excluding relevant ones. According to the Applicant, the absence of reasons deprives her of the ability to understand the basis upon which the gure of Kshs. 2,933,466.66 was reached, and therefore violates the rules of natural justice. 5. She further argues that the taxation as rendered is manifestly excessive and unjustiable, and that the Taxing Ocer’s approach amounts to a misdirection that calls for correction by this Court. The Applicant urges the Court to intervene and either re-tax the Bill itself or remit the matter to another Taxing Ocer, asserting that only such intervention will uphold the integrity of the taxation process and protect her constitutional rights. 6. Despite being duly served with the present application together with the hearing notice, the Respondent did not enter appearance and led no response to oppose the application. There is on record an Adavit of Service conrming that service was properly eected, and the Respondent has oered no explanation for his failure to participate in these proceedings. 7. The Court directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions, pursuant to the Court’s practice directions and in the interest of ecient case management. The Applicant duly led her submissions, which the Court has carefully considered. The Respondent, having failed to appear or le any response, did not le submissions. Applicant’s Written Submissions 8. The Applicant identied two issues for determination in her written submissions: (i) whether she is entitled to the orders sought in the Chamber Summons dated 30th April 2024, and (ii) who should bear the costs of the application. 9. She submitted that the Taxing Ocer’s decision should be set aside because it was reached without adherence to the applicable legal framework and without giving itemized reasons for each disputed item in the Bill of Costs, thereby rendering the taxation arbitrary. The Applicant emphasized that her challenge is properly before the Court pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which grants a party the right to question a taxation where reasons have not been given or where discretion has been improperly exercised. 10. In support of her position, the Applicant relied on the provisions of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, particularly Schedule 6 and Paragraph 11, arguing that a Taxing Ocer is legally bound to apply the prescribed scale and to give reasons for each contested item in an itemized Bill of Costs. 11. She submitted that the award of a global sum of Kshs. 2,933,466.66, without explanation or itemization, was contrary to the law and amounted to a misdirection of principle. The Applicant further contended that the Taxing Ocer disregarded her written submissions and failed to demonstrate how the impugned sum was computed, thus oending the principles of fairness and the duty to act judicially. 12. On the second issue relating to costs, the Applicant submitted that although the award of costs is a discretionary exercise of the Court, such discretion must be exercised judicially and with regard to the circumstances of each case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18281/eng@2025-12-11 2

page 2 of 4

13. She argued that she was compelled to le the present Reference because the Taxing Master’s decision was erroneous and unsupported by reasons, leaving her with no option but to seek redress before this Court. For that reason, she urged the Court to award her the costs of this application as against the Respondent, who neither participated in the taxation nor in the present proceedings despite proper and eective service. Issues for Determination 14. The sole issue for determination in this application is whether the Application is merited Analysis and Determination 15. The guiding principles for interfering with a Taxing Master’s decision are settled in the authorities of Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Another [1972] EA 162, First American Bank of Kenya v Shah & Others (2002) EA 64, and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92. These decisions underscore that interference is warranted where; (a) there is an error of principle, (b) the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or so high that it connes access to justice to the wealthy, (c) a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed, and (d) consistency in awards ought to be maintained. These principles guide this Court in determining whether the impugned taxation meets the threshold for disturbance. 16. In First American Bank of Kenya v Shah & Others (2002) EA 64 at p. 69, the Court stated: “This Court cannot interfere with the Taxing Master’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.” 17. The Applicant argues that the Taxing Master awarded a substantial global gure of Kshs.2,933,466.66 without assigning any reasons for doing so, despite the Bill of Costs being itemized. The awarding of a lump sum devoid of explanation raises a legitimate concern as to whether the correct principles were applied. 18. The Court in Republic v Ministry of Agriculture; Ex parte Muchiri W’Njuguna (2006) eKLR similarly held that although taxation is not a mathematical exercise, the Court will interfere where the award is “so high or so low as to amount to an injustice,” or where “irrelevant factors were considered or relevant factors omitted.” The absence of reasons is in itself a failure to demonstrate that relevant considerations were applied. 19. The Court of Appeal in Vipul Premchand Haria v Kilonzo & Co. Advocates [2020] eKLR stressed that the Taxing Master’s discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously, stating: “The matters the Taxing Master takes into consideration should be apparent from the reasons that she gives for her decision. It is those reasons that give an indication whether or not the discretion reposed in the Taxing Master was properly exercised.” 20. In this case, no reasons were provided for the computation of the global sum, and none were recorded addressing the disputed items of the Bill. This omission deprives the Court of the ability to ascertain whether the Taxing Ocer considered the factors articulated in Joreth (supra), which require assessment of the nature and importance of the matter, complexity, interests of the parties, conduct of proceedings, and all relevant circumstances. Without a reasoned basis, the award cannot be said to https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18281/eng@2025-12-11 3

page 3 of 4

reect judicial discretion. The absence of reasons is therefore an error of principle, and based on the authorities cited, it warrants this Court’s interference. Final Orders 21. Having found that the Taxing Master committed an error of principle by awarding a global sum without giving reasons, the Court is satised that the threshold for interference has been met. The Application dated 30th April 2024 accordingly succeeds. 22. The Ruling of the Taxing Ocer, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, DR, delivered on 16th January 2024, is hereby set aside. 23. The Defendant’s Party–to–Party Bill of Costs dated 16th March 2023 is hereby remitted for fresh taxation before a dierent Taxing Ocer, to be undertaken in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order and the principles set out in this Ruling. 24. Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: Ms. Micha H/N for Mbabu for the Applicants N/A ....... for the Respondent Philomena W. ................... Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18281/eng@2025-12-11 4

page 4 of 4