Mathu (Acting as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Monica Wangui Njenga) v Njenga & 2 others (Civil Case 25 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 11210 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11210 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU CIVIL CASE 25 OF 2020 JM NANG'EA, J JULY 15, 2026 BETWEEN DAVID KINYANJUI MATHU (ACTING AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MONICA WANGUI NJENGA) .................................. PLAINTIFF AND DAVID KINYANJUI NJENGA ........................................................ 1ST DEFENDANT NJEMONI LIMITED ....................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT CONSOLIDATED BANK OF KENYA LIMITED ........................ 3RD DEFENDANT RULING 1. By Chamber Summons dated 5/8/2025, the Plaintiff seeks reliefs as hereunder; 1. Spent 2. Spent 3. That the Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the decision of Honourable Christine Menya (DR) dated the 1st day of August 2025 taxing the 3rd Defendant’s party and party bill of costs dated the 8th day of October 2024 at Kes. 412,942/= and strike out the bill as being unfounded, untenable, unconscionable, unjust and inordinately high and/or remit the same for proper taxation. 4. That in the event the Honourable Court decides to remit the bill for taxation the court does give guidance to the Deputy Registrar on factors and parameters to be considered in fair taxation of the bill. 5. THAT costs of this application be provided for. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11210/eng@2026-07-15 1
page 1 of 3
2. The Plaintiff swore an affidavit in support of the application: He inter alia states that the Taxing Officer of this court on 1/8/2025 taxed the 3rd Defendant Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 28/10/2024 in the sum of Kshs. 412,070/=. He is aggrieved by the decision complaining that the taxed amount is inordinately high, hence this Reference. He fears that while the Reference is pending, the 3rd Defendant could execute the order thereby causing him irreparable loss. The Taxing Officer is said to have taxed the contentious Bill of Costs without reference to the “parent file’’ and/or regard to the applicable Advocates Remuneration Order. In particular, awarding Kshs. 300,000/= in instruction fees is dismissed as outlandish and unjustified considering that the matter had been disposed of at the interlocutory stage and the 3rd Defendant's participation was very minimal. 3. The court is therefore asked to disturb the award to avoid unlawful enrichment of the 3rd Defendant. 4. The 3rd Respondent opposes the application vide an affidavit in reply sworn by the Head of its Legal Department (Albert Anjichi). The witness fully associates the 3rd Respondent with the Taxing Officer's decision. It is contended that the Taxing Officer correctly applied the applicable legal principles in the impugned taxation. Plaintiff's Submissions 5. Through his Counsel’ submissions, the Plaintiff relies on the following principles espoused in the case of Premchand Reich vs Quarry Services of E.A. Ltd. & Others EALR [1972] EA 212 guiding assessment of costs of litigation: a. Costs should not be so high as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy. b. A successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs incurred. c. The general level of remuneration of advocates should be such as to attract recruits to the profession. d. So far as practicable, there should be consistency in awards. e. Courts may interfere if the Taxing Officer's award is so high or low as to amount to injustice to a party. f. The fall in value of money is a factor to consider in taxation of a Bill of Costs. 6. The same principles are reiterated in Kemboy Law Advocates vs Narok County Government (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2023[2025]) also alluded to by the Advocates. 7. The Plaintiff in particular complains about fees allowed for attendance as inordinately high and warrant review. There were no special complexities warranting the sums awarded thereunder. 3rd Defendant's /Respondent's Submissions 8. Suit was determined upon a consent by which the Plaintiff withdrew the suit with costs. The suit was not therefore heard in full. 9. This court can only interfere with the Taxing Officer's decision where; a. There is a demonstrated error of principle. b. Irrelevant factors were taken into account in the taxation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11210/eng@2026-07-15 2
page 2 of 3
c. An award is manifestly high or excessive. (As per the Court of Appeal's decision in Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs Deposit Protection Fund Board (2005) KECA 325 (KLR) and First American Bank Ltd vs Shah & Another [2002] 1 EA 64. 10. Proceedings terminated at a preliminary stage and value of the subject matter of the dispute is not ascertainable; instruction fees at Kshs. 300,000/= is proper. It is not shown how this figure is erroneous. 11. Correct principles were applied, therefore, and reference be dismissed. Determination 12. The Plaintiff appears to be specifically complaining about instruction fees the Taxing Officer allowed in the sum of Kshs. 300,000/= going by his affidavit. The sum is said to be excessive given that the matter was disposed of at the preliminary stage. 13. There is no error of principle on the part of the Taxing Officer that has been pointed out by the Plaintiff as to invite interference with the Taxing Officer’s discretion. 14. The rest of the Plaintiff's contentions are generalized. No specific error or misdirection by the Taxing Officer is pointed out. 15. No basis to interfere and the Reference is dismissed with costs to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE. In the presence of: Mr. Mwenesi Advocate for Mr. Muriithi Advocate for the Plaintiff/Applicant. Mr. Munene Advocate for Mr. Muya Advocate for the 3rd Defendant/Respondent Court Assistant (Jeniffer). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11210/eng@2026-07-15 3
page 3 of 3