Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 812 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a challenge to a taxed costs award, confirming courts won't disturb a taxing officer's decision unless an error of principle is proven.
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 Claimant/Applicant's application for review of the Taxing Officer's ruling is merited?
Key legal issues
#Whether the reference/review against the Taxing Officer's ruling of 26th November 2024 disclosed a basis for the court to interfere with the taxation
The application was not merited; the taxing master applied the correct scale and gave reasons for each item, and the applicant's proposed computation would amount to a double award.
The court noted an earlier ruling of Kshs. 1,125,205 by Hon Mbeja had been set aside for lack of reasons, and Hon E. Riany re-taxed at Kshs. 637,878.32 giving reasons. The applicant relied on Molonket, but the court found the applicant misapprehended paragraph 7 of that ruling: accepting the applicant's tabulation of graduated levels up to Kshs. 1,000,000 plus 2% of the balance would double-count the first million. Since no error of principle was established, the court would not disturb the quantum, quantum being the taxing officer's domain.
Whether the applicant's reliance on the Molonket decision warranted the higher graduated computation of instruction fees
The court found a misapprehension of paragraph 7 of the Molonket ruling; the decision did not support the applicant's layered tabulation.
In Molonket, Radido J held the taxing officer fell into error by simply arriving at a lump sum without explanation, applying the graduated scales. The present court distinguished that context, holding that adopting the applicant's arithmetic of separately awarding fees at each graduated level while also computing 2% on the balance would double-award costs on the first Kshs. 1 million of the judgment sum of Kshs. 17,197,443.
Legal principles established
#- A court interferes with a Taxing Officer's decision only where it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle; the court is not entitled to upset a taxation merely because it considers the amount high.
- The value of the subject matter for taxation ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where the taxing officer errs in principle, the judge should refer the bill back for taxation rather than re-tax it.
- Under Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, instruction fees are computed on a graduated basis at the levels of Kshs. 500,000/-, 750,000/-, 1,000,000/- and ultimately 2% of the balance decretal sum, and applying layered graduated caps to the same sum would produce a double award.
Court orders
#- 1.The application seeking review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's ruling dated 26th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- 3.It is so Ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review jurisdiction over a Taxing Officer's decision (reference against taxation under the Advocates Remuneration Order)
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's decision of 26th November 2024 certifying costs at Kshs. 637,878.32
The court found no error of principle; the taxing master rightly applied the 6th Schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order and gave reasons for each item; the applicant's graduated-scale tabulation would amount to double recovery on the first Kshs. 1 million
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs 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.
The court found no basis to interfere with the ruling on taxation of costs dated 26th November 2024. The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
if it was to accept the tabulation on graduated scale from 0 to 1,000000 and then award 120000 for the 1st one million as suggested by the applicant, that would be tantamount to double award of costs on the first 1 million shillings of the judgment sum
The court on perusal of the ruling found that the taxing master rightly applied the 6th Schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order and gave reasons on each of the items under the bill of costs.
the Court should interfere with the decision of the Taxing Oficer where there has been an error in principle but should not do so in questions solely of quantum
It is so Ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The court records that the earlier ruling of 2nd September 2024 was set aside by an order 'dated 28th October 2025', a date later than both this application and the impugned ruling of 26th November 2024, suggesting an internal date error.
The judgment quotes the applicant as submitting that the Taxing Officer erred in awarding instruction fees at 'Kshs. 443,949,992/-' while later the same figure appears as 'Kshs. 443,949.92', an apparent internal inconsistency in the quoted submission.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 812 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Chamber Summons Application dated 5th March, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1821/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.