Moronge & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2014] KECA 816 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed judges can slash inflated legal fees, cutting an advocate's bill from Kshs. 278 million to Kshs. 1.2 million.
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 client's reference to the High Court was incompetent for non-compliance with the Advocates Remuneration Order
- 2.Whether a Judge of the High Court has jurisdiction on a reference to tax a contested bill himself rather than remit it to the taxing officer
- 3.Whether the learned Judge was entitled to interfere with the taxing officer's determination of instructions fees
- 4.Whether the value of the subject matter could be determined from the pleadings where the claimed figure had no basis
Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference filed out of time
The reference was competent because the client filed it pursuant to an order of Chemitei J in separate proceedings against which the advocates lodged no appeal; they cannot now complain.
The High Court had, on 21st November 2011, dismissed the client's application but in substance treated it as an application for extension of time and granted leave to file a reference. The advocates did not appeal that order. Having not challenged the order granting leave, the advocates could not attack the reference's competence in this appeal arising from that reference.
Jurisdiction of a High Court Judge to tax a bill on a reference
A High Court Judge has jurisdiction to tax a contested bill himself on a reference; remission to the taxing officer is the general practice but not mandatory.
All authorities cited, including D'Sonza v Ferrao, James v Nyeri Electricity and Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates, were unanimous that the reviewing judge can and sometimes does deal with taxation himself. The Judge has a discretion to deal with the matter where the justice of the case so requires, particularly where the taxing officer has erred in principle.
Determination of value of subject matter for instructions fees
Where the pleading contains a claim figure with no ascertainable basis, it cannot constitute the value of the subject matter; the taxing officer must then exercise his discretion to award just fees.
Schedule VI(1)(b) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order derives value from pleadings, judgment or settlement. Paragraph 12 of the amended plaint aggregated Kshs. 25,542,000,000 without identifying the parcels of land, their valuations or developments. The figure could not found instructions fees. The Judge was entitled to interfere and re-tax at Kshs. 1.2 million; no error of principle was detected.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge of the High Court hearing a reference from a taxing officer has jurisdiction to tax the bill himself where the justice of the case so requires, though the general practice is to remit quantum to the taxing officer.
- Where the value of the subject matter cannot be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing officer must exercise his discretion to award instructions fees he considers just, taking into account the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and other relevant circumstances.
- A court on reference may interfere with a taxing officer's decision where the amount awarded is unreasonable and excessive in the circumstances, and an Advocate's fees must be commensurate with the work done.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- KSM HCMISC No. 138 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the High Court (Appellate Jurisdiction Act / Constitution); appeal against a ruling on an advocate-client reference
Relief refused
#Setting aside the High Court ruling and remitting the bill of costs to the taxing officer for taxation afresh
The taxing officer's figure had no basis and the Judge was entitled to interfere and re-tax; no error of principle or improper exercise of discretion was detected
Costs
Appeal 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.
We have said enough, we think, to show that this appeal is without merit. It is ordered dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The Judge has however a discretion to deal with the matter himself if the justice of the case so requires
The figure given therein was, in our view, plucked from the air. Like the learned Judge, we find and hold that the figure had absolutely no basis.
Where there has been an error in principle the court will interfere but questions solely of quantum are regarded as matters with which the taxing officers are particularly fitted to deal and the court will intervene only in exceptional cases.
the client was granted extension to file its reference against the taxation in a ruling in separate proceedings against which ruling the appellant preferred no appeal
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states the taxed figure as Kshs. 278,416,690 and Kshs. 278,466,690
The quoted ruling of the learned Judge contains a typographical error rendering the taxed sum as 'manifestly exclusive'
The citation of D'sonza v Ferrao is inconsistently given as [1960] 602 and [1960] EA 602
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Otieno Okeyo & Co Advocates v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E259 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)3 Sept 2026applied
- Aly Enterprises Limited v Absa Bank Kenya Plc & 4 others; Mafuta Products Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E039 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2252 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2252 (KLR)23 Apr 2026applied
- Autoports Freight Terminals Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (Civil Appeal (Application) 76 of 2018) [2025] KECA 1297 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1297 (KLR)18 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moronge & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2014] KECA 816 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/816/eng@2014-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.