Kirima (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Gerishon Kamau Kirima (Deceased)) v Corner Place Investment Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 45 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3412 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court set aside a Ksh.4.7 million taxation ruling because the Taxing Master gave no reasons, and allowed the late challenge caused by a lawyer's mistake.
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 Court should extend time and grant the 1st Respondent / Applicant leave to file its reference out of time.
- 2.Whether the Court should set aside the decision of the Taxing Master delivered on 5th March 2024 and refer the Petitioner's Bill of Costs dated the 9th August 2023, for taxation before a different Taxing Master.
Key legal issues
#Whether to enlarge time for filing a reference out of time under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The delay was excused as the applicant's erstwhile advocates failed to file the reference and the respondent showed no prejudice
The court found the impugned ruling gave no reasons for the taxation, so the applicant's explanation that its advocates sought reasons but failed to file the reference was plausible. The 14-day period under Rule 11(1) had lapsed, but paragraph 11(4) empowers the court to enlarge time. The Petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice if the reference was allowed, and the interest of justice favoured excusing the delay.
Whether to set aside the Taxing Master's decision and order re-taxation before a different taxing master
The ruling was set aside because the Taxing Master offered no reasons and thus erred in principle
Applying Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara and Premchand Raichand principles, interference is warranted where the taxing officer errs in principle. The court noted the Taxing Master 'did not proffer any reasons on why he taxed the Bill of Costs as it is'. Failure to give reasons meant the discretion was not exercised judiciously, amounting to an error of principle, justifying setting aside the ruling and certificate and remitting the bill to a different taxing master.
Legal principles established
#- A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle
- A taxing officer must offer reasons for the taxation decision; discretion must be exercised judiciously
- Mistake of counsel should not be visited upon a litigant
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party who must explain the delay
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of SOW Advocates LLP granted leave to come on record for the 1st Respondent in place of Kimani & Muriithi Associates Advocates
- 2.Time extended and the 1st Respondent granted leave to file its reference out of time against the Taxing Master's decision of 5th March 2024
- 3.The Ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 5th March 2024 including the resultant Certificate of Costs set aside
- 4.The Petitioner's Bill of Costs dated 9th August 2023 to be taxed afresh before a different Taxing Master other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat
- 5.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (power of the High Court to enlarge time for filing a reference)
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.
It is against the foregoing and in the interest of justice, that I will proceed to set aside the Ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 5th March, 2024 including the resultant Certificate of Costs and direct that the Petitioner's Bill of Costs dated 9th August 2023 be taxed afresh before a difierent Taxing Master other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat.
I find the Notice of Motion application dated the February 4, 2025 merited and will allow it but make no order as to costs.
In the circumstances, while associating myself with the above cited decision as well as the quoted legal provisions and in the interest of justice, I will excuse the delay and allow the 1st Respondent to file its reference out of time.
The taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise; it is entirely a matter of opinion based on experience.
It is my considered view that despite the fact that the 1st Respondent failed to file an objection within fourteen (14) days including a reference as required by law, I find the reasons it has rendered that its erstwhile advocate failed to inform it, nor file the reference on time, plausible.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the court or case number in which it was delivered; the court had to be inferred from context
Decree amount inconsistently stated - supporting affidavit says Kshs.4,718,41.70 while the motion says ksh.4,718,451.70
Petitioner's citation of Salat carries conflicting year/case-number details (Application 16 of 2024 but [2014] KESC 12)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirima (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Gerishon Kamau Kirima (Deceased)) v Corner Place Investment Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 45 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3412/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.