Samuel Wainaina Njuguna v Others & 11 Others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to cut Kshs 547,500 in costs, ruling that challenging a taxed bill requires showing a real legal error, not just wanting a lower figure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Standard of interference with a taxing officer's decision on a Rule 117 reference
Interference is only warranted on an error in principle or where the sum is manifestly excessive; questions of quantum are for the taxing officer.
The court applied the Premchad and Joreth/Arthur principles: quantum is the taxing officer's domain and intervention is exceptional. The judge held that a party seeking to reduce fees must demonstrate an error of principle, not merely a preference for a lower figure. Seven separate appeals with bulky records justified the instruction fee of Kshs. 500,000 despite later consolidation.
Effect of consolidation on costs for pre-consolidation work
Parties who filed multiple appeals cannot later claim costs should be assessed as if only one appeal existed; pre-consolidation work is recoverable.
The Applicants' litigation strategy of filing seven separate appeals created additional work for the successful respondents. Consolidation came later and could not retrospectively erase perusals, attendances and responses on individual files. Item-by-item challenges (case management, hearing, judgment attendance) all failed as the charges were not manifestly excessive even if attendance was virtual.
Whether family-member status justifies reducing properly incurred costs
No; family considerations alone cannot justify reducing costs properly incurred by a successful party.
The court acknowledged the litigation concerned family land and that a heavy costs burden may embitter family relations, but held that legal costs follow the event and successful parties are entitled to reasonable reimbursement. The Applicants' own choice to pursue seven appeals, not the respondents, generated the costs.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference under Rule 117 will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision except where the sum allowed is manifestly excessive or low or where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle.
- The absence of elaborate reasons does not of itself vitiate a taxation where the record shows the taxing officer applied correct legal principles.
- Work done on separate appeals before consolidation is properly chargeable notwithstanding the later consolidation.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master, Court of Appeal
- Party and party bill of costs dated 16th March, 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 117(1) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Wainaina Njuguna v Others & 11 Others", Case Analysis (2025). Reference under Rule 117(1) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1671/eng@2025-10-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.