Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves Tankoi and nine others challenging the Chief Land Registrar and three others over excessive instruction and getting up fees assessed by the taxing master in a land petition. The applicants sought to set aside the 12 June 2025 decision regarding costs in Kilgoris ELC Petition No. 7/2021 (formerly Narok ELC Petition No. 3/2021). The court determined the reference was filed out of time as reasons for taxation were already provided in the 12 June 2025 ruling, with the application struck out for lack of a competent reference. Key facts include the applicants' argument that fees were unreasonable and the interested parties' defense that the taxing master exercised discretion properly.
Issues
- Whether or not the reference is merited?
- What reliefs ought to issue.
- Who bears the costs of the reference?
- Whether or not there is a competent reference before court.
Holdings
The court determined that the application dated 19th August 2025 seeking to set aside the taxing master's decision was not a competent reference before the court. The ruling held that the reasons for taxation were already contained in the 12th June 2025 decision, and the application was filed out of time under Rule 11 of the Advocates Renumeration Order, resulting in the application being struck out with costs.
Remedies
The application dated 19th August 2025 seeking to set aside the taxing master's decision is hereby struck out with costs, as there was no competent reference before the court.
Legal Principles
The court applied Rule 11 of the Advocates Renumeration Order, which mandates that objections to a taxing master's decision must be filed within 14 days of receiving reasons. It referenced the Ahmed Nassir v. National Bank of Kenya (2006) decision to clarify that where reasons are already contained in a formal ruling, further requests for reasons are unnecessary. The court held the reference filed on 19 August 2025 was out of time as the original ruling's reasons were available by 12 June 2025.
Precedent Name
- Soreth Limited Vs. Kigano an Associates
- Kipkorir Tito and Kiara Advocates Vs. Deposit Protection Fund Board
- Prenchman Ralchand Ltd Vs. Qarry services of East Africa Ltd
- Nyagito and Co. Advocates Vs. Dony O. Lessos Creameries Ltd
- Ahmed Nassir Vs. National Bank of Kenya
Cited Statute
Advocates Renumeration Order
Judge Name
MN MWANYALE, J
Passage Text
- Although Rule 11(i) of the Advocates Renumeration order stipulates that any party who wishes to object to the decision of the Hon. Taxing Master the said decision and thereafter file his reference within 14 days from the date of receipt of the reasons. Where the reasons for the taxation on the disputed items in the Bill are already contained in the considered Ruling, there is no need to seek for further reasons simply because of the unfortunate wording of subrule 2 of Rule 11 of the Advocates Renumeration Order demands so. The said Rule was not intended to be ritualistically observed even when reason for the disputed taxation are already contained in formal and considered ruling.
- It follows that there is competent reference before court for the court to consider on its merits, there being no application for extension of time; the court cannot equally extend time.
- Having considered the foregoing this court hereby assess instruction fees at Khs.500,000/=-.