Inyumba v Mumani (Civil Miscellaneous Application E218 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8058 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8058 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E218 OF 2025 S MBUNGI, J JUNE 2, 2026 BETWEEN JACOB MWANZI INYUMBA ................................................................. APPLICANT AND WILLIAM KILOVA MUMANI ........................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant’s Notice of Motion is brought under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and all other enabling provisions of the law. 2. The application seeks: 3. a. Stay of execution of the taxation ruling delivered on 18th December 2025; and b. Setting aside or variation of the taxed costs of KShs. 118,200/= to KShs. 38,200/= or such other amount as the Court may deem fit. The application is premised on the grounds that the taxation was excessive, not in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order, and that the taxing officer failed to properly consider the nature of the matter and submissions filed. Issues for Determination 4. The Court identifies the following issues: 1. Whether stay of execution should be granted. 2. Whether the taxing officer committed an error of principle warranting interference. 3. Whether the taxed costs are manifestly excessive. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8058/eng@2026-06-02 1
page 1 of 3
Analysis and Determination Whether Stay of Execution Should Be Granted 5. The grant of stay of execution is a discretionary remedy guided by well-settled principles developed under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and judicial precedent. 6. The Applicant must satisfy the Court on the following principles: i. The Applicant must demonstrate that he will suffer substantial loss unless stay is granted. ii. The application must be made timeously to avoid prejudice and abuse of process. iii. The Court may require security to balance the interests of both parties. iv. Preservation of subject matter / nugatory principle 7. The Applicant contends that execution of the taxed costs may issue immediately and expose him to payment before determination of the reference. 8. The Court is satisfied that if execution proceeds and the reference ultimately succeeds, recovery of the sum paid may be procedurally burdensome and may occasion prejudice. This satisfies the threshold of substantial loss. 9. The application was filed without unreasonable delay following the ruling delivered on 18th December 2025, thereby satisfying the requirement of timeliness. 10. On security, the Court notes that while security is ordinarily required, in taxation references involving a modest sum, justice is sufficiently served by preserving the status quo pending determination. 11. Further, allowing execution to proceed may render the reference nugatory, thereby defeating the purpose of Paragraph 11 proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution. Whether the Taxing Oficer Committed an Error of Principle 13. The jurisdiction of this Court under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is limited to correction of errors of principle and not re-taxation of the bill. 14. In Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR, the Court held that interference is only justified where there is a misdirection in principle or manifest excessiveness. 15. Similarly, in Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte W’Njuguna & Others [2006] eKLR, it was held that taxation is an exercise of discretion and will not be interfered with unless clearly wrong. 16. Further in Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, the Court emphasized that the taxing officer is best placed to assess instruction fees based on pleadings and discretion where value is not ascertainable. 17. I have looked at the ruling on the taxation made by the taxing master, and the submissions which had been filed in that matter . Mr. Nthungu contention that the bill of costs was not taxed as per the scales provided for by the Advocates Remuneration Order . https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8058/eng@2026-06-02 2
page 2 of 3
18. I think the fairer thing to do is to set aside that taxation order by Hon. Philip Mutua (CM) in respect to the bill of costs dated 1.9.2025 in taxing case No. Kakamega MCELC No. E040 of 2021 and refer the bill of costs for taxation by another magistrate apart from Hon.Philip Mutua (CM). 19. Mention 11.6.2026 before the Chief Magistrates Kakamega Law Courts for allocation to another magistrate. 20. Right of Appeal 30 days. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026. S.N MBUNGI JUDGE In the presence of:CA: Zilda/Velma Parties absent. Advocates absent though aware of the ruling date. Court Assistant to post the ruling on the CTS forthwith. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8058/eng@2026-06-02 3
page 3 of 3