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
#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
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (power of the High Court to enlarge time for filing a reference)
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.