Gikaria t/a Anthony Gikaria & Co. Advocates v Samchi Telecommunications Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application E865 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8817 (KLR) (Civ) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8817 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E865 OF 2025 SIFUNA NIXON, J MAY 28, 2026 BETWEEN ANTHONY GIKARIA T/A ANTHONY GIKARIA & CO. ADVOCATES ............................................................................................. APPLICANT AND SAMCHI TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD ..................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. This is a Taxation Reference filed by Anthony Gitau & Co. Advocates, against the Taxation Decision delivered by Hon Lawrence Osotsi (Taxing Officer) on 12th August 2025. On this Advocate’s Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 10th June 2025. 2. The Reference, which was filed by way of a Chamber Summons dated 15th August 2025, was brought under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Which Summons, is supported by the Supporting Affidavit of the Advocate Anthony Gikaria, sworn on even date. 3. It is principally based on the ground that the said Taxing Officer, failed to increase the Instruction Fees by half, despite those being Advocate-/Client Costs and not a Party to Party Costs. That the Taxing Officer further failed to add to the costs, Value Added Tax (VAT) of 16% as required for AdvocateClient Costs. 4. By this Reference, the Advocate is seeking the setting aside of the said taxation. 5. The Client the Respondent has opposed the Reference through its Replying Affidavit, sworn by Njeru Karuana sworn on 22nd September 2025. 6. In its opposition, the Client is arguing that there having been no Party and Party Taxed Costs, the Taxing Officer had nothing to increase. Hence that he was right in awarding 75% of instruction fees, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8817/eng@2026-05-28 1
page 1 of 2
as that the suit the subject of Taxation was undefended. Further that the Taxing Officer had to apply his discretion. Analysis and Determination 7. This Reference proceeded by way of written submissions. With each party filing its submissions. The Advocate’s submissions are dated 22nd September 2025. While the Client’s submissions are dated 26th September 2026. 8. I have perused the Chamber Summons (together with its Supporting Affidavit), the Replying Affidavit, the parties’ filed submissions, as well as the impugned Ruling by the Taxing Officer. 9. In Nyangito & Co. Advocates v. Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] KEHC 5481 (KLR), it was held that the Judge will not interfere with the decision of a Taxing Officer, unless there is an error of law or principle or the taxed costs are manifestly high or manifestly low. In this particular case, there is a clear error of law and principle. 10. By the Taxing Officer failing to increase the Instruction Fees by half, as required by Part B of the Schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order. He also erred in failing or neglecting to add VAT to the costs. The current VAT rate is 16%. 11. Indeed, the Taxing Officer taxed the filed Bill of Costs, as if it were a Party to Party Bill of Costs. Yet it was an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs. This is an error that warrants interference. 12. Consequently, the Reference is allowed. In terms that the Taxation Decision delivered in this matter by Hon. Lawrence Otsosi on 12th August 2025, is hereby set aside in its entirety. I further direct that the subject Bill of Costs dated 10th June 2025, be re-taxed by another Taxing Officer. 13. The Advocate being successful, he shall have the costs of this Reference. Which costs are hereby assessed at Ksh 20,000=. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8817/eng@2026-05-28 2
page 2 of 2