Naomi Wangui Muchai v Johanna Mwaura Muchai & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to increase a lawyer's fee award, confirming judges rarely disturb a taxing officer's costs decision absent an error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Circumstances in which a judge may interfere with a taxing officer's decision on a reference under Rule 117
Interference is limited to cases of error of law or principle, or where the award is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate; the burden lies on the party seeking the reference to bring themselves within that ambit
The court traced the rationale of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Part V of the Court of Appeal Rules through Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority, including Premchand Raichand and Steel & Petrol. Rule 117(1) confines references to matters of law or principle and Rule 117(3) permits references where the bill is manifestly excessive or inadequate, but not on quantum alone. The applicant bore the burden of demonstrating one of these grounds.
Whether the taxing officer erred in refusing to base the instruction fee on the value of the deceased's estate (Kshs. 3.5 billion)
No error: the appeal's subject matter was the validity of a power of attorney and the manner in which the High Court conducted proceedings, not the estate itself; the value of the estate was irrelevant to the assessment
Applying Joreth Limited v Kigano and Associates, the value of the subject matter is determined from the pleadings and judgment. The Court of Appeal's own reasons in the underlying appeal identified the main issue as the manner in which the superior court handled the matter and the validity of the power of attorney. Since the estate was not the subject of the appeal, the taxing officer correctly declined to use its value in computing the instruction fee.
Whether the award of Kshs. 1,000,000 as instruction fee was manifestly inadequate
The applicant failed to demonstrate manifest inadequacy beyond mischaracterising the subject matter
The court acknowledged the ruling would have been enriched by an explanation of how the Kshs. 1 million figure was reached, but held that the applicant did not show the taxing officer considered irrelevant matters, omitted relevant ones, or reached a plainly wrong decision. Mere disagreement with the quantum is insufficient; a reference on quantum alone is impermissible.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under Rule 117 of the Court of Appeal Rules lies only on a matter of law or principle, or where the bill as taxed is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate; a reference on a question of quantum alone is not permissible
- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs unless there is a misdirection on principle or the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to a party
- The value of the subject matter for purposes of taxation is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; the subject matter of the appeal in question was the validity of a power of attorney, not the value of the estate
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.The applicant to pay the costs of the reference
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (Deputy Registrar sitting as taxing officer)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 116 and 117 of the Court of Appeal Rules (reference from a taxing officer's decision to a judge of the Court of Appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naomi Wangui Muchai v Johanna Mwaura Muchai & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/667/eng@2025-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.