Chaudri & Associates Advocates v Robert Bosch East Africa Limited (Miscellaneous Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that once judgment fixes the real value of a case, legal fees must be based on that amount, not inflated pleaded claims.
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 reference was incompetent for want of compliance with the procedure for filing a reference, i.e. failure to first request reasons from the Taxing Master
- 2.Whether the Taxing Master committed an error of principle by relying on the figure pleaded in the Statement of Claim (Ksh. 79,644,600.96) as opposed to the sum awarded in the judgment (Ksh. 829,631.26) as the value of the subject matter
Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference without prior objection and request for reasons
The reference was properly filed because the Taxing Master's ruling contained the reasons for the decision.
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order ordinarily requires an objection and a request for reasons before filing a reference. However, courts have held this requirement not mandatory where the ruling itself sets out the reasons. Since the Taxing Master's ruling in this dispute contained the reasons for the decision, the Applicant was not obliged to file an objection first, and the Respondent's competency objection failed.
Correct basis for assessing the value of the subject matter in taxing instruction and getting up fees
The Taxing Master erred in principle by using the pleaded claim of Ksh. 79,644,600.96 instead of the judgment award of Ksh. 829,631.26; the taxation order was set aside and the Bill remitted for fresh taxation before another Taxing Master.
Following Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, the value of the subject matter for instruction fees depends on the stage of taxation: pleadings before judgment, judgment once entered. Judgment in the primary suit awarded Ksh. 829,631.26, which conclusively set the claim's true value. The Taxing Master's reliance on the pleaded sum of Ksh. 79,644,600.96 was therefore an error of principle warranting setting aside and remittal.
Legal principles established
#- The requirement to file an objection and call for reasons before filing a reference under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not mandatory where the taxation ruling itself contains the reasons for the decision.
- Where judgment has been pronounced, the value of the subject matter for taxation is determined by the judgment, not the pleadings.
Court orders
#- 1.The taxation order issued on 27th February 2025 is set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs dated 11th December 2024 to be placed before another Taxing Master of the court for fresh taxation
- 3.The Taxing Master to take into account the observations made in this ruling whilst re-taxing the Bill of Costs
- 4.Each party to bear own costs of the reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - reference against a Taxing Master's decision
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 requirement of filing an objection to a taxation order and calling for reasons from the Taxing Master before one can file a reference is not mandatory where the taxation ruling contains the reasons for the decision
In the premises, the objection by the Respondent to the competence of the reference on this account must and hereby fails.
This was an error of principle. As such, the taxation order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation.
The court orders that the aforesaid Bill of Costs be placed before another Taxing Master of the court for fresh taxation.
Each party to bear own costs of the reference.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chaudri & Associates Advocates v Robert Bosch East Africa Limited (Miscellaneous Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Reference dated 3rd March 2025 (arising from ELRC Cause No. 656 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2435/eng@2025-09-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.