Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 24/05/2024 (Reference against Taxing Master's Ruling of 9/04/2024)

Muvokanza Limited v Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP & another (Environment and Land Case E120 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7117 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
22 October 2025
MOMOGENI
1,914 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court struck out a late challenge to taxed legal costs, confirming that the 14-day deadline starts when the taxing ruling is delivered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Reference by advocates (Applicants, who were the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the underlying suit) seeking to set aside or have retaxed a Party & Party Bill of Costs taxed on 9/04/2024 at Kshs.629,670/-, or in the alternative remitted for taxation before another Taxing Master. The Respondent opposed, arguing the Reference was defective for non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, since the Applicants wrote to the Taxing Officer seeking reasons only on the day the ruling was delivered and filed the Reference on 24/05/2024 without leave or enlargement of time. The Court framed two issues: whether the Reference was defective, and whether the taxation ruling should be set aside or taxed afresh. Applying Ahmed Nassir v National Bank of Kenya and following Evans Thiga Gaturu and Chege v Muiruri, Moegeni J held that where a taxation ruling contains reasons, the objector need not await written reasons, and time runs from delivery of the ruling. The Applicants' Reference filed more than 14 days later was therefore incompetent. On the merits, the Court found the claim that the Taxing Master ignored the value of the suit property misleading, as its own Ruling of 16/05/2022 made no reference to that value, and the Applicants failed to identify the specific items of taxation complained of. The Reference was struck out with costs to the Respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Reference is defective.
  2. 2.Whether the Ruling on Party and Party costs should be set aside/taxed afresh.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Reference was defective for failure to follow Rule 11 procedure (late filing without seeking reasons or enlargement of time)

Holding

The Reference was defective/incompetent. The Taxing Master's Ruling contained reasons, so waiting for written reasons was unnecessary and the 14-day period ran from delivery of the ruling

Reasoning

The Court found that the Taxing Officer delivered a substantive, complete ruling containing reasons on 9/04/2024. Under Rule 11(1) and (2) ARO, time begins running on delivery of the ruling. Following Ahmed Nassir, Evans Thiga Gaturu and Chege v Muiruri, where reasons appear on the face of the decision the objector must file the Reference within 14 days; the Applicants filed on 24/05/2024 without leave or enlargement of time, rendering the Reference incompetent.

p. 3
02

Whether the Taxing Master erred in the taxation by ignoring the value of the suit property

Holding

The contention failed; the Ruling dated 16/05/2022 relied on never referred to the value of the suit property, and the Applicant did not identify the items objected to

Reasoning

The Court reread its own Ruling of 16/05/2022 and found no reference to the value of the suit property, concurring with the Respondent that the Applicant's inference was misleading. Further, the Applicant did not specify which items struck out or taxed were objectionable, making it impossible for the Court to give useful guidance on the merits of the complaint.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where reasons for taxation are contained in the Taxing Officer's ruling, there is no need to request further reasons and time under Rule 11(1) runs from delivery of the ruling; filing the Reference more than 14 days after delivery renders it incompetent
  • The basis for determining subject matter value for instruction fees depends on the stage of taxation - pleadings before judgment, judgment value after judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Reference is unmerited and is struck out with attendant costs in favour of the Respondent.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MO
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Taxing Master (Taxation of Party & Party Bill of Costs)
Bill of Costs taxed on 9/04/2024 for Kshs.629,670/-
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - objection to decision on taxation

Relief refused

#

Setting aside of the Taxation of the Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 9/04/2024 or taxation afresh, or remission to another Taxing Master

The Reference was lodged out of time without leave or enlargement of time; the Taxing Master's Ruling already contained the reasons for taxation; and the Applicant failed to identify the specific items objected to

p. 4

Costs

Costs in favour of the Respondent (the Reference struck out with attendant costs in favour of 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.

the upshot is that the Reference is unmerited and it is struck out with attendant costs in favour of the Respondent.
p. 4Disposition - striking out of the Reference
it was unnecessary, in the circumstances, for the Applicants to request and or wait to receive written reasons from the Taxing Oficer to enable them to lodge their Reference, as the Ruling by design or form provided the reasons for the Taxation.
p. 3Rule 11 ARO - no need to await written reasons where the ruling contains reasons
My understanding of 11 (1) & (2) of the ARO, is that time begins running upon delivery of the Taxing Oficer's Ruling.
p. 3Commencement of the 14-day period under Rule 11
Where reasons are contained in the decision, I share the view that to file the Reference more than 14 days after the delivery of the same would render the Reference incompetent.
p. 3Consequence of late filing of a Reference

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment appears to conflate two References - it opens by describing a Reference dated 24/05/2024 against a bill taxed at Kshs.629,670/-, but paragraph 3 describes a different Reference dated 7/2/2022 against a bill taxed at Kshs.216,744/-

minor

The deponent of the supporting affidavit, Njuguna Muri, and the 2nd Applicant Wyclifie Kipkemoi Ngenoh appear as different names, and the judgment refers to 'The 1st and 2nd Defendant/Applicants filed their submissions' although the Reference is described as by the Advocate

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muvokanza Limited v Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kageni LLP & another (Environment and Land Case E120 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 24/05/2024 (Reference against Taxing Master's Ruling of 9/04/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7117/eng@2025-10-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.