Vaghela v County Government of Kakamega (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed an advocate's challenge to taxed costs, ruling courts won't change a taxing officer's decision without proof of a clear legal error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is sufficient material presented by the applicant to justify this court's interference with the decision of the taxing officer
- 2.Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding Kshs. 300,000/= in instruction fees (item 1)
- 3.Whether getting up fees (item 2) was awardable where the suit was confirmed for hearing but withdrawn before full hearing
- 4.Whether the award of Kshs. 1,900/= for each of items 24 and 25 (attendances) was proper
Key legal issues
#Interference with taxing officer's discretion on instruction fees
No error of principle demonstrated; the award of Kshs. 300,000/= stands as the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from pleadings, judgment or settlement and the taxing officer properly exercised her discretion.
The claim was for forfeiture of a lease for non-development; no value was disclosed in the pleadings or at withdrawal. The valuation report of Kshs. 65 million was produced only for taxation and was inadmissible as evidence of the value. The applicant did not plead complexity or show how the award was too low, so the discretion exercised was not vitiated.
Entitlement to getting up fees (item 2)
Getting up fees was not awardable because the parties did not demonstrate that the case had been fully prepared for trial, even though it had been confirmed for hearing.
Schedule 6 paragraph 2(ii) requires the taxing officer to be satisfied the case was prepared for trial. The court found the taxing officer misdirected herself in denying the fees solely because the suit did not proceed to full hearing, but still concluded the fees were not awardable since compliance documents were not confirmed as filed and served and preparation for trial was not demonstrated.
Awards on items 24 and 25 (attendances)
The award of Kshs. 1,900/= per attendance was proper as the events were brief mentions not exceeding half an hour.
The record showed the matter came up for mention on 24/11/2022 and 22/2/2023 for directions on compliance documents, exercises that could not have taken more than ten minutes. The amount awarded corresponds to attendance before the judge for half an hour or less under paragraph 7(d) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown to be based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or too low as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- The value of the subject matter for purposes of instruction fees is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, not from evidence such as a valuation report filed at taxation.
- A valuation report filed only at the taxation stage and not forming the basis of the parties' claim should not be applied in taxation.
- Getting up fees is chargeable where the case has been confirmed for hearing AND the taxing officer is satisfied the case has been prepared for trial; confirmation for hearing does not equate to preparation for trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (reference against a taxing officer's decision)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the taxing officer's decision on items 1, 2, 24 and 25 and re-taxation afresh by the court
The applicant failed to demonstrate an error of principle; the taxing officer correctly declined to rely on a valuation report filed only at taxation and properly exercised her discretion on instruction fees; getting up fees were not awardable as preparation for trial was not demonstrated; the attendance awards were proper for brief mentions.
Costs
Costs of the reference 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.
It is trite that taxation of bills of costs is an exercise of discretionary power by the taxing oficer and that discretion must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically or arbitrarily.
a valuation report coming from one of the parties at the tail end, after litigation and only in respect of taxation is nothing but stealing a march on the opposing party, which is frowned upon by the law.
Confirmation for hearing does not equate to preparation for trial, because many times cases may be confirmed for hearing but from the record, parties have not prepared for trial
In the premises, I find no merit in the reference which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated, signed and delivered at Machakos although the case and reference concern Kakamega ELC Case No. E034 of 2022 before the Kakamega station.
Inconsistent dates in the record: the applicant's supporting affidavit refers to a costs ruling of 4th September 2024, while the judgment records the costs ruling as 14th March 2024; submissions are also dated 24th April 2023 although the reference was filed in February 2025.
The taxing officer's letter of reasons is misdated as 10/2/1025 in the applicant's affidavit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vaghela v County Government of Kakamega (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega ELC Case No. E034 of 2022 (Reference against decision of the taxing officer of 8th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8258/eng@2025-11-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.