Ngungi v Maweu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 455 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Makueni court threw out a taxed legal bill of Kshs. 219,800 because the taxing officer gave no reasons, ordering fresh taxation.
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 Applicant has demonstrated that there is need for the court to interfere with the discretion of the taxing officer
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should interfere with the taxing officer's discretion
The application was allowed because the taxation disclosed no reasons and the amount awarded after taxation was manifestly excessive, evidencing an error of principle.
The court restated the principles from the Ukwala Supermarkets case: interference is warranted where the decision is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive. Here the certificate gave no breakdown of how the taxing officer arrived at Kshs.219,800/= out of a bill of Kshs.270,700/=, did not indicate what was awarded under instruction fees, did not disclose the acreage or how instruction fees were assessed. The applicant was also not served with notice of taxation. The only taxed-off figure was Kshs.50,900/=, leaving an amount manifestly excessive, justifying setting aside and remittal for fresh taxation under Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer's discretion can only be interfered with where an error of principle is shown, including where the amount awarded is manifestly excessive or the bill was not taxed in accordance with the law.
- Where a certificate of costs discloses manifest excess or lack of reasons, the court will set it aside and remit the bill for fresh taxation.
Court orders
#- 1.The certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 is set aside in its entirety
- 2.The bill of costs dated 14th May, 2024 is remitted back for fresh taxation in accordance with schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014
- 3.The Applicant shall have costs of this reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside a certificate of costs following taxation in Makueni MC ELC E024 of 2023
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 therefore allow the Applicant’s application, set aside the certificate of costs dated 17th July, 2024 in its entirety and remit back the bill of costs dated 14th May, 2024 for fresh taxation in accordance with schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014.
The circumstances under which a judge of the High Court interferes with the taxing oficer’s exercise of discretion are now well known.
The law regarding taxation of the bill of costs is that the taxing oficer has discretion to tax a bill before him.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the date of the certificate of costs: the motion seeks review of a certificate dated 10th July, 2024, while the final orders set aside a certificate dated 17th July, 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngungi v Maweu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 9th April, 2025 arising from Makueni MC ELC E024 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/455/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.