Chemoyai t/a Chemoyai & Company Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a challenge to a taxing officer's ruling because it was filed a month late, confirming Kenya's strict 14-day deadline for taxing disputes.
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 reference was brought in accordance with the requirements of the law
- 2.Whether the taxing officer committed any error in principle as to warrant the court's interference
Key legal issues
#Whether the reference complied with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The reference was incompetent as it was filed outside the 14-day period and no request for reasons or extension of time was made.
Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order sets out the court's jurisdiction over references. The ruling was delivered on 19th July 2024 but the reference was filed a month later, without an application for extension of time. Although failure to request reasons may be forgiven where reasons are discernible from the ruling, non-compliance with the 14-day filing requirement divests the court of jurisdiction.
Whether the taxing officer committed an error of principle
No error of principle was established; the taxing officer applied his discretion correctly and the award was drawn to scale.
The taxing officer's award was drawn to scale, and on instruction fees he correctly noted the absence of a valuation report. No disbursements requiring receipted proof were charged - the items were court attendances and service, which do not require proof by receipts. The court, citing Kagurimi Kangethe & Co. Advocates v O-lerai Nurseries Limited, found no manifest excess justifying an inference of erroneous principle.
Legal principles established
#- A reference against a taxing officer's decision must be filed within 14 days as provided under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; failure to do so without an extension of time renders the reference incompetent and divests the court of jurisdiction.
- An error in principle warranting interference exists where the costs allowed are so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that the taxing officer acted on erroneous principles.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's reference is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a taxing officer's decision)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the taxing officer's ruling of 19th July 2024 and re-taxation of the bill of costs, alternatively by another taxing master
The reference was filed out of time without leave, rendering it incompetent and divesting the court of jurisdiction; and in any event the taxing officer applied his discretion properly with no error of principle
Costs of the application
Costs were awarded against the Applicant to the Respondent
Costs
The reference 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.
This renders the application in competent and divests the cour of jurisdicton to deal with it. This is enough to dispose of this application but I will nevertheless move on to address the issue whether the taxing oficer committed any errors of principle to call for interference of this court.
An example of an error in principle is where the costs allwoed are so manifestly excessive as to justify an interference that the taxing oficer acted on erroneous principles
I therefore find that the Applicant's refernce is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains numerous typographical errors throughout (e.g. 'taxing oficer', 'privisons', 'enterain', 'Appicant', 'refernce', 'cour of jurisdicton', 'discrection'), which do not affect the substance of the rulings.
The names of the parties and the case number are not stated in the judgment text; only the roles 'Applicant' and 'Respondent' appear.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chemoyai t/a Chemoyai & Company Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/188/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.