Vincent Chokaa Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Civil Appeal 17 of 2020) [2026] KECA 351 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a law firm's Kshs. 10 million fee claim against Uasin Gishu County, confirming taxing officers can strike out defective bills and procedure must be followed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Deputy Registrar sitting as a taxing master had power to strike out the appellant's bills of costs
- 2.Whether the appellant approached the High Court by the correct procedure
Key legal issues
#Scope of the taxing master's jurisdiction over the competency of a bill of costs
The Deputy Registrar sitting as taxing master had power to strike out the appellant's bills of costs; her jurisdiction under paragraphs 10 and 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order extends to determining objections going to the competency of a bill, not merely to quantum.
The jurisdictional question was conclusively settled by this Court in Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2016 in the same matter, and applied by the trial judge on remittal. Paragraph 10 confers the power to tax bills, while paragraph 13A, expressed in broad and purposive terms, empowers the taxing officer to direct all proceedings necessary for the determination of 'any matter in dispute before him'. A bill met with a formal objection to its very foundation presents such a matter in dispute. It would be absurd to require taxation regardless of such objections only for the determination to be set aside on review.
Correct procedure for challenging a Deputy Registrar's decision
The appellant did not approach the High Court by the correct procedure; the prescribed mode under Order 47 Rule 8(2) - endorsement on the record within fourteen days - was not followed, and the earlier indulgence under Article 159 could not be renewed after a full hearing on the merits.
Order 47 Rule 8(2) prescribes endorsement upon the record within fourteen days as the mechanism for appealing a Deputy Registrar's decision; a chamber summons filed as originating process has no statutory foundation. In Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2016 this Court nonetheless extended an Article 159 indulgence and remitted the matter for re-hearing before a different judge. That re-hearing was held and dismissed on the merits. The appellant cannot re-agitate the competence of an application this Court already rescued; Article 159 is not a panacea for a litigant's own procedural defaults, and where statute prescribes a clear procedure it must be strictly followed.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing master sitting as a Deputy Registrar has authority, under paragraphs 10 and 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, to determine whether a bill of costs is properly before her, including objections to competency such as limitation, want of leave, absence of an advocate-client relationship, and deficiency of supporting material.
- An appeal from a Deputy Registrar's decision must be initiated by way of an endorsement upon the record within fourteen days under Order 47 Rule 8(2); a chamber summons filed as an originating process is an incompetent mode of appeal.
- Article 159 of the Constitution cannot be repeatedly invoked to rescue a litigant's own procedural defaults once the default has been indulged once and the matter fully determined on the merits; where a clear procedure is prescribed by statute it must be strictly followed.
- A taxing officer may not refer a matter in dispute to the High Court for opinion under paragraph 12 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order without the consent of both parties.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 56 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction over High Court decisions
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against the High Court judgment upholding the Deputy Registrar's striking out of the bills of costs
The taxing master had jurisdiction to determine the competency of the bills, and the appellant had not followed the prescribed procedure under Order 47 Rule 8(2); the merits were already fully and finally determined on remittal
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The appeal lacks merit on all fronts and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The phrase "any matter in dispute before him" is significant. A taxing master seized with a bill of costs that is met with a formal objection challenging its very foundation whether for want of an underlying advocate-client relationship, limitation, absence of leave, or deficiency of supporting material is necessarily seized with a "matter in dispute."
The prescribed procedure under Order 47 Rule 8(2) is not a mere formality. It is the specific mechanism by which the High Court's appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Deputy Registrar is properly and lawfully invoked.
Article 159 is not a provision upon which a litigant may repeatedly rely to rescue procedural defaults of his own making.
Litigation must come to an end. The procedure is designed to ensure fairness, eficiency and finality in litigation.
Issues in the judgment
#The Deputy Registrar's name is inconsistently rendered in the judgment: first as 'Hon. W. Mbulikah' and later as 'Hon. P.W. Mbulikah'.
The judgment states the appeal came up for hearing on 19th January 2026 and was delivered on 27th February 2026, dates which are in the future relative to standard recordkeeping and may reflect typographical error in the certified copy.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Chokaa Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Civil Appeal 17 of 2020) [2026] KECA 351 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th July 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/351/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.