Eveline (Suing on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Peter Waugh) v Kiiru & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a challenge to taxed legal costs, confirming that missing the strict 14-day objection procedure is fatal to a costs Reference.
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 master erred in her ruling in taxation dated 20th of August 2025, significantly on the flagged items by the Applicant, to warrant substitution or fresh taxation
- 2.who should bear the costs of this Reference
Key legal issues
#Error of principle by the taxing master in instruction fees, folios, copies, service and attendance items
The court found the taxing master's tabulated calculations were not shown to be erroneous; the reference disclosed no basis for re-taxation
The court set out the recognised grounds for interference (wrong schedule, mis-valued subject matter, double-counting, failure to consider relevant factors, manifestly excessive or inadequate awards, failure to give reasons) but found nothing in the material before it warranting interference with the taxing master's pronounced calculations, and declined to substitute its own assessment.
Procedural compliance with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Reference procedure requires written notice of objection within 14 days; the record did not show that reasons were sought and refused, so the failure-to-give-reasons ground could not sustain the Reference
The court outlined the multi-step procedure: notice to the taxing master specifying objected items within 14 days, transmittal of reasons, then a Chamber Summons Reference within 14 days of receipt. It noted nothing indicated the Applicant sought reasons before filing the Reference, so that ground was unavailable.
Deference to the taxing master's discretion
Judicial restraint applies; a judge cannot overturn an award merely because they would have awarded a different amount
Relying on Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority, the court held that taxation is a discretionary expert function, and intervention is limited to demonstrable error of principle or awards so excessive or low as to imply such error.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing master's decision is challenged not by appeal but by a Reference to a Judge under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, whose multi-step timelines are a jurisdictional condition precedent
- A judge will not interfere with a taxing master's award absent a demonstrable error of principle or an award so excessive or low that an error of principle must be inferred
- Failure to give written notice of objection to the taxing master within 14 days of the ruling extinguishes the right to challenge the bill
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference is struck out with costs
- 2.The items as taxed by the taxing master are left to stand
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - Reference to a Judge challenging a taxing master's decision
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the taxing master's ruling of 20th August 2025 and the Bill of Costs dated 4th February 2025, and substitution with an appropriate finding
The court found nothing to interfere with; the taxing master's figures were tabulated without reasons but no strict-compliance basis for a Reference was established and the court cannot re-tax the bill
Costs
The Reference was struck out with costs (costs of the Reference to the Respondents).
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 see nothing to interfere with the taxing master's pronounced calculations in taxation. This leaves me with no option but to strike out the Reference with costs, as I cannot re-tax the bill. The items as taxed are left to stand.
Failure to file this notice within 14 days results in the loss of your right to challenge the bill, and the court will be precluded from entertaining any subsequent application.
The Superior Court will reverse or overturn a taxing master’s award in taxation only where a demonstrable error of principle is identified, or where the award is so clearly excessive or low that an inference of an error of principle must be drawn.
a judge cannot overturn an award solely because they might have awarded a different amount.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronological anomaly: the taxing ruling is dated 20th August 2025 and the Reference filed 2nd September 2025, yet the judgment is dated 23rd July 2026, and the Reference was opposed by grounds dated 1st October 2025 and a replying affidavit of 8th October 2025
The judgment describes the taxing master as a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the High Court although the matter is pending before the Environment and Land Court
The court struck out the Reference on the merits without making an express finding on whether the mandatory 14-day notice of objection under Paragraph 11 was filed, despite describing non-compliance as a jurisdictional defect
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eveline (Suing on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Peter Waugh) v Kiiru & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 74 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. 74 OF 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5132/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.