Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court set aside a Kshs 1.55 million instruction fee award because the taxing officer gave no reasons for the figure.
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 taxing officer erred in awarding instruction fees in the manner that he did
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding Kshs 1,551,400/- as instruction fees on item 1
Yes - the taxing officer failed to give reasons for the award, amounting to an error in principle
The court applied the classic taxation principles from Premchand Raichand and the Kipkorir Titoo test for interference on a reference. Although the taxing officer had discretion where the subject-matter value was undetermined, discretion must be exercised judiciously with reasons. Having found no explanation of how Kshs 1,500,000/- instruction fees was derived, the court held there was an error of principle and set aside the decision on item 1, remitting it for re-taxation.
How the value of the subject matter is determined for instruction fees
Where taxation occurs before judgment, the pleadings form the basis of subject-matter value; after judgment, recourse is had to the judgment
The court cited Schedule 6 Paragraph (1)(b) and (d) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Court of Appeal decision in Peter Muthoka v Ochieng to establish that subject-matter value depends on the stage of proceedings, and noted the factors in Joreth v Kigano Associates for assessing instruction fees.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer must give reasons for the award made on items presented for taxation; failure to give reasons is an error of principle warranting interference on a reference
- On a reference from taxation, a judge will not interfere unless the taxing officer erred in principle, e.g. where costs are manifestly excessive
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30th January 2025 in regard to item No. 1 of the 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs be and is hereby set aside
- 2.The 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs dated 15th May 2024 is remitted to another taxing officer for re-taxation of Item 1
- 3.Costs to abide with the outcome of the taxation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Re-taxation of item 1 by the same court (prayer 4)
The court instead granted the alternative prayer, remitting the bill to a different taxing officer
Costs of the application to the Applicant
Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the re-taxation rather than being awarded to the Applicant
Costs
Costs to abide with the outcome of the taxation
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.
I find that the taxing oficer erred in principle for failing to give any reasons for his decision.
In the end I find that the application dated 6th February 2025 is merited and the same is hereby allowed
The decision of the Taxing Oficer delivered on 30th January 2025 in regards to item No. 1 of the 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs be and is hereby set aside.
The 1st Respondent's Party to Party Bill of Costs dated 15th May 2024 is remitted to another taxing for re taxation of Item 1.
the court will only interfere when the award of the taxing oficer is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party.
Issues in the judgment
#The Taxing Officer is referred to inconsistently as both 'he' and 'she/her' within the judgment
Inconsistency in the taxed figure - the ruling awarded Kshs 1,551,400/- but the analysis refers to an award of Kshs 1,500,000/- as instruction fees
The name of the 1st Respondent is not disclosed anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 6th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5335/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.