Chemoyai t/a Chemoyai & Co Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 219 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Makueni dismissed a challenge to a taxed legal bill because it was filed over a month late with no extension of time sought.
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 as per the requirements of the law
- 2.Whether the taxing officer committed an error in principle as to call for the court's interference
Key legal issues
#Compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (request for reasons and 14-day filing period)
The reference was incompetent as it was filed a month after the taxation ruling without an application for extension of time, though failure to request reasons was forgivable since the reasons were discernible from the ruling.
Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order governs references. The court found no evidence the applicant sought reasons from the taxing officer, but excused that omission because the reasons were clearly discernible from the ruling. However, the ruling was delivered on 19th July 2024 and the reference filed a month later, with no extension of time sought, so the reference did not follow the rules and was incompetent. That alone disposed of the application.
Whether the taxing officer committed an error of principle
No error of principle was established; the taxing officer applied the correct principles, having noted the absence of a valuation report, and items on service fees and letters to client had been taxed off.
Applying Kagurimi Kangethe & Co. Advocates v O-lerai Nurseries Limited, an error in principle exists where costs are manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of erroneous principles. The court found that items on service fees and letters to client were taxed off, so the applicant could not complain of what was not granted. On instruction fees, the taxing officer duly noted the absence of a valuation report and applied the correct principles in arriving at a reasonable figure.
Legal principles established
#- A reference against a taxing officer's decision must be filed within 14 days as prescribed by Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; filed outside that period without extension of time it is incompetent.
- An error of principle justifying interference with a taxing officer's discretion exists where 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 application (Chamber Summons dated 20th August, 2024) is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application 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
Relief refused
#Setting aside the taxing officer's decision of 19th July 2024 and fresh taxation (by this court or another taxing master)
Reference filed out of time without extension of time, rendering it incompetent; and no error of principle established
Costs
The application 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 therefore shows that reference was filed without following the rules and is therefore in competent. This is enough to dispose ofi this application
I therefore find that the Applicant's application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
An example of an error in principle is where the costs allowed are so manifestly excessive as to jsutify an interference that the taxing oficer acted on erroneous principles
Issues in the judgment
#The bill of costs is inconsistently described - the Chamber Summons refers to a bill of costs dated 14th December, 2023 while the Applicant contends the taxing officer taxed an Advocate/client bill of costs dated 12th April, 2024 (marked '(sic)' in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chemoyai t/a Chemoyai & Co Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 219 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 20th August, 2024 (bill of costs dated 14th December, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/219/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.