Kandie v Chande & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 24 of 2020) [2026] KECA 83 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that legal fees must be calculated on the value of the property actually in dispute, not unrelated consolidated cases, cutting an inflated fee award.
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 Officer erred in principle by computing the instructions fees on the aggregate value of four properties (Kshs. 40,000,000) rather than the value of the specific property (Kwale/Diani SS/2845, valued at Kshs. 1,000,000) subject to Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020 in which the applicant was liable for costs
- 2.Whether the single judge erred in upholding the Taxing Officer's ruling
Key legal issues
#Error of principle in computing instructions fees on the value of property not subject to the appeal for which costs were awarded
The Taxing Officer erred in principle by using the aggregate value of four properties where only one property (Kwale/Diani SS/2845) was the subject of Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020, and the resulting award of Kshs. 1,200,000 was manifestly excessive.
The consolidated appeals were filed by separate parties over separate properties, each memorandum of appeal addressing individual properties. Since the applicant was accountable for costs only in the 1st and 2nd respondents' appeal concerning Kwale/Diani SS/2845, valued at Kshs. 1,000,000, taxing instructions fees on the total value of Kshs. 40,000,000 was an error of principle producing a manifestly excessive fee.
Applicable principles for setting aside a certificate of taxation
The Court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in NGO Board v EG & 5 Others and Premchand Raichand: interference is warranted on error of principle or manifest excess, with due regard to fair reimbursement and consistency.
The Court restated that a single judge should not interfere merely because they would have awarded a different figure, but may do so where the taxing officer's discretion was exercised unjudicially. Here the error of principle and manifest excess were established, satisfying the criteria for setting aside the certificate of taxation and remitting the bill for re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer.
Legal principles established
#- Instructions fees on a taxed bill must be computed on the value of the subject matter of the specific appeal in respect of which costs are payable, not the aggregate value of property in other appeals consolidated with it.
- A certificate of taxation may be set aside where the Taxing Master acted in error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive, subject to the principles of fair reimbursement and consistency laid down in Premchand Raichand and NGO Board v EG & 5 Others.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Reference is allowed as prayed
- 2.The ruling of the Hon. Single Judge (L. Achode, JA.) dated 11th April 2025 is set aside
- 3.The applicant's bill of costs dated 22nd June 2023 is remitted for re-taxation by a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Adika
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the Reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (single judge, L. Achode, JA)
- Reference dated 4th December 2023 from Taxing Officer's ruling dated 29th November 2023 (Consolidated Civil Appeal Nos. E017, 24 and 74 of 2020)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference to a full bench under the Court of Appeal Rules in respect of a single judge's decision on a reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling
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 find that the Taxing Oficer acted in error of principle by computing instructions fees recoverable by the 1st and 2nd respondents on the basis of the value of four properties of which three were not subject to the specific appeal (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020) in respect of which the 1st and 2nd respondents were entitled to costs as against the applicant.
the ruling of the Hon. Single Judge (L. Achode, JA.) dated 11th April 2025 is hereby set aside
the applicant’s bill of costs dated 22nd June 2023 be and is hereby remitted for re-taxation by a Taxing Oficer other than Hon. Adika
The parties shall bear their own costs of the Reference.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment dates the applicant's Reference as '11th April 2021' in the disposition, which is internally inconsistent: the Reference is earlier described as dated 4th December 2023 and the single judge's ruling under challenge is dated 11th April 2025.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kandie v Chande & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 24 of 2020) [2026] KECA 83 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal Reference from the Ruling of L. Achode, JA dated 11th April 2025 (arising from Consolidated Civil Appeal Nos. E017, 24 and 74 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/83/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.