Nganga v Q-Initiative CBO

that the learned taxing ocer failed to apply the correct principles and the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 in taxing the Applicant’s Party and Party Statement of Costs dated 7th April 2025. 3. The application is supported by the adavit of Fridah Nzamsa, counsel for the Claimant, sworn on 5th November 2025, in which she reiterates the grounds upon which the application is premised. 4. The Respondent did not le any response to the application. There is no replying adavit or grounds of opposition on record. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the Court issued on 28th January 2026 requiring the Claimant to le further documents clarifying the issue in dispute, the Claimant led a further adavit sworn by counsel, Fridah Nzamsa, on 2nd February 2026. 6. In the further adavit, counsel depones that the Applicant instructed her rm to institute a claim seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent, a declaration that his termination was unfair, a declaration that the procedure leading to the termination was not followed, terminal dues, and a certicate of service. 7. Counsel further depones that the Respondent entered appearance and led a response to the claim dated 15th April 2024 and led on 22nd April 2024, in which it denied the averments in the claim. 8. It is further deponed that the cause proceeded to hearing on various dates, during which the Claimant called two witnesses and the Respondent equally called two witnesses. Judgment was thereafter delivered on 20th February 2025, awarding the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 354,220 being compensation for unfair termination and one month’s salary in lieu of notice. That following delivery of judgment, the Applicant led a Statement of Costs dated 7th April 2025 and led on 8th April 2025, together with a list of documents of even date. 9. Counsel avers that in the said Statement of Costs, the Claimant relied on Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. The Statement of Costs came up for assessment on 27th November 2025, after which the matter was slated for ruling on 5th January 2026. 10. It is averred that the Taxing Ocer delivered her ruling on 5th January 2026 and taxed the Claimant’s Statement of Costs at Kshs. 68,300 and that the Taxing Ocer taxed o Kshs. 20,000 from Item 1 and awarded Kshs. 45,000 as instruction fees instead of the Kshs. 65,000 claimed by the Applicant. 11. The Applicant’s asserts that the Taxing Ocer failed to appreciate that, under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, where the value of the subject matter falls between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 500,000 in a defended claim, the applicable instruction fee is Kshs. 65,000. The Applicant therefore contends that the award of Kshs. 45,000 was erroneous. 12. It is further averred that the Taxing Ocer failed to appreciate that the matter was a defended cause and that instruction fees ought to have been assessed on the higher scale, not the lower scale, in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. 13. The Applicant maintains that had the Taxing Ocer properly appreciated the nature of the proceedings and the applicable scale, she would have arrived at a dierent nding. 14. The court was thus urged to allow the reference as prayed. Determination 15. The only issue before the Court for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2129/eng@2026-07-21 2

page 2 of 3

16. It is trite that a superior court will not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Taxing Ocer unless it is shown that the Taxing Ocer acted on a wrong principle of law, misapprehended the applicable law or that the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to justify an inference of error in principle. 17. From the evidence on record, in particular, annexure FN-2 in the Applicant’s Further Adavit dated 2nd February 2026, is clear that the suit herein was defended by the rm of Bedan Njeri & Company who entered appearance on 15th April 2024 and led a response to the Statement of claim. It has also not been controverted that the said rm participated in the proceedings and called witnesses during the hearing. Judgment was ultimately entered in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 354,220. 18. The Applicant has faulted the Taxing Ocer’s ruling on grounds that the Taxing Ocer applied lower scale which applies to undefended matters instead of the higher scale which is applicable to defended suits under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 2014. 19. Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 draws a distinction between defended and undefended suits. In matters where the value of the subject matter falls between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 500,000 in a defended claim, the prescribed instruction fee is Kshs. 65,000. 20. In taxing Item 1 at Kshs. 45,000, despite the matter having been defended, the Taxing Ocer applied the lower scale which amounted to a misapplication of the applicable provision of the Remuneration Order and consequently an error in principle warranting interference by this Court. 21. Consequently, the reference succeeds to the extent that the taxation on Item 1 is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 65,000 as instruction fees. 22. The remainder of the taxation is upheld. 23. Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026 MAUREEN ONYANGO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2129/eng@2026-07-21 3

page 3 of 3