1.                 The chamber summons dated 11^th March, 2010 is brought under provisions of rule 11 (2) of The Advocates Remuneration Order. The applicant is seeking to set aside the order by the taxing officer Mrs. P.N. Gichohi – PM.  The order sought is to set aside in particular items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill of Costs dated 6^Th August, 2003. Alternatively the bill of costs be submitted for taxation before a different taxing officer. This application is predicated on the grounds stated on the body of the application and the supporting affidavit sworn by Alice Nyamati on 11^th March, 2010.

2.                  Briefly stated, the applicant is aggrieved by order of taxation which was made on 11^th February 2009, in which the plaintiff’s party and party bill of costs was taxed at Ksh. 1,699,767.10. On 19^th February 2009, the  applicant applied for the reasons and the taxing officer endorsed on the file on 27^th February 2009, that the reasons are contained in the ruling which she delivered on 11^th February, 2009. The applicant had issued a notice seeking for the reasons in respect of items 1, 2, 3 and 4. The applicant now contends that they were granted leave by the ruling Ombija – J in the Judge’s ruling dated 3^rd March, 2010 to file a reference out of time. The applicant is also challenging the award of costs which is claimed to be excessive and not founded under The Advocate’s Remuneration order. The taxing officer is also faulted for taking into consideration extraneous matters.

3.                 This application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent. Mr. Samba learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Notice of Preliminary objection on points of law as well as the replying affidavit sworn by him on 18^th November, 2010. It was submitted that this application is incompetent and an abuse of the court process. He annexed a decree issued pursuant to the judgment of Nambuye – J. on 6^th November, 2003. The certificate of costs was issued on 20^th February, 2009 after the bill of costs had been taxed twice. The applicant filed another application dated 13^th October, 2009 in which they sought for orders of the enlargement of time within which the applicant could file the reference to the High Court which order of extension of time was refused by the ruling of Ombija – J. dated 3^rd March, 2010.

4.                  The only reason why the warrant of execution was set aside in that ruling is because the respondent had overlooked to issue the requisite notice to show cause. The respondent subsequently issued the notice to show cause which was scheduled for hearing on 24^th November, 2010 before the Deputy Registrar. This application just like the previous applications was brought at the threshold of the hearing of the Notice to show cause so as to scuttle execution. This suit has had a long history.

5.                  It was filed in 1994 at High Court in Eldoret when the sub registry was opened in Kitale in 1997; the file was transferred to the High Court Kitale. Judgment was entered in October, 2002. The bill of costs was taxed in 2003, and the applicant has used every trick to defeat the cause of justice by filing a multiplicity of applications. It was submitted further that the applicant also filed another suit in the High Court at Kisii being No. 263 of 2009 and an application for injunction which was also dismissed. The applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010 which was also dismissed. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this application with costs.

“Find reasons in the ruling, no further reasons available.”

7.       In my own understanding of the above ruling, the order of leave to file reference out of time was not granted. The court noted and rightly so, that from the 27^th February, 2009 the applicant was aware of the reasons for the award of costs for each of the items. It is not clear and the applicant did not explain what prevented them from filing the reference. Even if I were to go with the submissions by counsel for the applicant that leave was granted on 3^rd March, 2010 this application was filed on 25^th August, 2010 which is also after the 14 days period provided for under the Advocate Remuneration Order. It is not also lost to me that the application is dated 11^th March, 2010 which in my view is merely contrived and meant to confuse the matter as one will wonder why a document will be dated but filed 4 months later.

(a)     That costs be not allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy;

(b)     That successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs he has had to incur;

(c)    That the general level of Remuneration of advocates must be such as to attract recruits to the profession; and

(d)    That so far as practicable there should be consistency in the awards made;

(e)   The court will only interfere when the award of the taxing officer is so high

(f)    Or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party;