Munene v Kahuthu & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 446 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 2196 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court upheld a Kshs. 838,141.90 taxation of costs, refusing to disturb the Taxing Master's decisions absent proof of error of principle.
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 failed to ascertain the correct subject matter in the suit for the purposes of taxation and instruction fees was arrived at on the wrong principles
- 2.Whether the Taxing Master overlooked the provisions of Schedule 6A (7) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 with regards to items on Court attendances as he ought to have verified the dates submitted in the Bill of Costs
- 3.Whether the Taxing Officer overlooked the fact that the Respondents tendered no evidence of physical service and physical attendance at the registry
Key legal issues
#Correct ascertainment of subject matter for instruction fees
The Taxing Master properly applied his discretion where the value was not easily determinable, since the Respondents had been struck out of the suit and the judgment award was not against them; his valuation of the subject matter was proper.
Relying on the Supreme Court in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and the Court of Appeal in Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Peter Muthoka, the court noted the value of the subject matter is to be determined from pleadings, judgment or settlement. Because the Respondents were struck out with no costs and the final judgment did not bind them, the Taxing Master correctly used his discretion to adopt the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 733,800 as the ascertained value. The prior ruling of 11th July 2024, which held costs were payable to each Respondent individually and was not appealed, precluded consolidation of instruction fees.
Court attendances, folios, service and filing fees items
The court declined to interfere with the Taxing Master's ruling because the Applicant failed to prove the alleged failures to verify dates and scrutinize folios, service and filing-fee items.
Applying Premchand Raichand and Thomas James Arthur, the court held quantum is a matter for the taxing officer and interference is only in exceptional cases or on error of principle. The Applicant produced no proof that the Taxing Master failed to verify dates or scrutinize folios. Further, the Respondents were struck out in 2018, before digitization of the judiciary, so physical filing and attendance at the registry during 2014-2017 was plausible; receipts are kept in the court file for counterchecking.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for purposes of taxing instruction fees is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; only where the value is neither discernible nor determinable from these sources may the Taxing Officer exercise discretion to assess what is just.
- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's award merely because it thinks it too high or too low; interference is warranted only where the award amounts to an injustice or where there is an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant/Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 21st March 2025 was found to lack merit and was dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court over references against a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014
Relief refused
#Setting aside/quashing/vacating of the Taxing Master's decision of 11th March 2025 by way of reference
The Taxing Master properly ascertained the subject matter and exercised discretion properly; matters raised were res judicata/afterthought
Re-taxation of the Bill of Costs by the court or referral to another Taxing Officer
No basis to disturb the Taxing Master's exercise of discretion; re-taxation unlikely to yield different results
Stay of execution of the Taxation Ruling for payment of Kshs. 838,141.90
The application, which the stay was to pend, was dismissed in its entirety
Costs
No express costs order made in the disposition; the application was simply dismissed.
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 therefore finds that the Claimant/Applicant's application lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the court will not interfere with the ruling as the Claimant/ Applicant has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Taxing Master failed to verify the dates submitted in the Bill of Costs.
Therefore, the Taxing Master properly ascertained the correct subject matter in the suit for the purposes of taxation.
The Claimant/Applicant did not appeal or seek for review of this ruling which directed the Taxing Master to grant each of the Respondent instruction fees as they were sued in their individual capacity, therefore, his argument does not stand.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's numbered issues paragraph is empty - paragraph 32 states 'The issues for this court's determination are as follows:' with no content, and the issues appear in paragraph 33.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munene v Kahuthu & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 446 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 2196 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 21st March 2025 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2196/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.