Njuguna & another v Mbugua & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 558 of 2008) [2026] KEELC 1198 (KLR)

Vincent Kiplagat, Deputy Registrar dated 18th September, 2025 arising from the plaintifi’s party and party bill of costs dated 17th February, 2025. 3. That the honourable court be pleased to set aside the ruling by the honourable Vincent Kiplagat, deputy registrar dated 18th September, 2025 arising from the plaintifi’s party and party bill of costs dated 17th February, 2025. 4. That the decision of the learned deputy registrar delivered on 18th September, 2025 with respect to the plaintifi's bill of costs dated 17th February, 2025 be set aside and taxed afresh by this honourable court or be remitted to a taxing master, other than the Hon. Vincent Kiplagat for taxation. 5. That the costs of this application be provided for. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the afidavit of Lawrence Muriithi Mbabu, the learned counsel on record for the 1st to 4th defendants/applicants which was sworn on even date. The learned counsel deposed that the plaintifis/respondents served them with the party and party bill of costs dated 17th February, 2025. 3. He deposed that the 1st to 4th defendants/applicants disputed the bill of costs which was taxed at Kshs.978,145/- vide the ruling delivered on 18th September, 2025. The learned counsel deposed that the taxing oficer failed to consider the scale of fees prescribed under Schedule 6 of the Advocate (Remuneration) Order 2014 by awarding an amount that is high, and further merely stated that the other items are allowed as claimed without any evidence of receipt in the taxed bill of costs, which is contrary to the law. 4. The learned counsel therefore contends that the taxing master put into account irrelevant factors or excluded relevant factors while arriving at Kshs.978,145/- as the taxed amount and that the ruling on the bill of costs is against the interests of justice and ofiends the rules of natural justice and ought to be set aside. 5. The Plaintifis/respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 2nd February, 2026 opposing the reference application on the following grounds: 1. No grounds for the revocation of the taxing masters' decision have been laid. 2. The reference has no basis in substance and procedurally. 3. The reference is time barred. 6. The chamber summons was canvassed through written submissions. The 1st to 4th defendants/ applicants filed their written submissions dated 10th February, 2026. The plaintifis/respondents filed their written submissions dated 12th February, 2026. I have considered the application, the grounds of opposition and the written submissions filed by both parties. The issue for determination is whether the taxing oficer erred in his ruling that would warrant this court’s intervention. 7. The 1st to 4th defendants/applicants challenge the ruling delivered by the taxing oficer on 18th September, 2025 on the grounds that the taxed amount awarded to the plaintifis/respondents was high and that the ruling itself was against the principles of law and natural justice. I have perused the pleadings on record, and I note that the plaintifis/ respondents filed the party and party bill of costs dated 17th February 2025 seeking a sum of Kshs.2,928,145/- while the taxing oficer taxed the same ofi to Kshs.978,145/-. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1198/eng@2026-02-19 2

page 2 of 4

8. The taxing oficer noted in the ruling that there was no valuation report to ascertain the suit land’s value, therefore he was entitled to exercise his discretion and proceeded to do so. 9. The 1st to 4th defendants/applicants relied on the Supreme Court authority of Outa v Odoto & 3 others (Petition 6 of 2014) [2023] KESC 75 (KLR) where it was held that the principles for setting aside a taxing master’s decision are if:a. there is an error of principle committed by the taxing oficer; b. the fee awarded is shown to be manifestly excessive or is so high as to confine access to the court to the wealthy; (and I may add, conversely, if the award is so manifestly deficient as to amount to an injustice to one party). c. the court is satisfied that the successful litigant is entitled to fair reimbursement for the costs he has incurred, (and I may add, the award must not be regarded as a punishment of the defeated party but as a recompense to the successful party for the expenses to which he had been subjected by the other party); and d. the award proposed is so far as practicable, consistent with previous awards in similar cases. To these general principles, I may add that; i. There is no mathematical formula to be used by the taxing oficer to arrive at a precise figure because each case must be considered and decided on its own peculiar circumstances, ii. Although the taxing oficer exercises unfettered judicial discretion in matters of taxation that discretion must be exercised judicially, not whimsically, iii. The single Judge will normally not interfere with the decision of the taxing oficer merely because the Judge believes he would have awarded a difierent figure had he been in the taxing oficer’s shoes. 10. Since the value of the land which was the substratum of the suit was not ascertainable from the pleadings or documents filed or the judgment, the taxing oficer had to exercise his discretion in assessing and taxing the plaintifis/respondents bill of costs. 11. The Court of Appeal afirmed this position in the case of Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates [2002] eKLR relied upon by the plaintifis/respondents where they held that:“ We would at this stage point out that the value of the subject matter of a suit for the purposes of taxation of a bill of costs ought to be determined from the pleadings judgment or settlement (if such be the case) but if the same is not so ascertainable the taxing oficer is entitled to use his discretion to assess such instruction fee as he considers just, taking into account, amongst other matters, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings, any direction by the trial judge and all other relevant circumstances.” 12. From the court’s point of view, the taxing oficer did not make any error of principle in taxing the bill of costs, nor is the taxed amount manifestly excessive as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the Outa v Odoto(Supra) case quoted above. 13. From the above, this court finds the chamber summons dated 2nd October, 2025 lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1198/eng@2026-02-19 3

page 3 of 4

It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. HON. MBOGO C.G. JUDGE 19/02/2026. In the presence of: Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistant Ms. Mika hodling brief for Mr. Mbabu for the Applicant Mr. Wanyango holding brief for Mr. Namada for the 1st and 2nd Respondents https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1198/eng@2026-02-19 4

page 4 of 4