Francis Kimolo Kimatu & 59 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2022] KEELC 474 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Embu dismissed a challenge to taxed legal costs, confirming courts rarely interfere with a taxing master's fee decisions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master's failure to consider the applicants' written submissions amounted to an error of principle
No. Although the taxing master treated the bill as unopposed despite submissions on file, the failure caused no prejudice because the taxing master in fact addressed the substantive points, including the joint instruction fee issue raised in the submissions.
The court found submissions dated 10th February 2021 were on file and not considered. However, an error of principle arises only if the taxing master failed to apply the correct principles or prejudice was occasioned. The taxing master's ruling outlined the correct Joreth principles and dealt extensively with the applicants' key submission on whether instruction fees could be multiplied across 53 interested parties, giving sound reasons. No prejudice was therefore occasioned.
Whether the Kshs. 200,000/= instruction fee was manifestly excessive
No. The award was justified under Schedule 6 paragraph 1(j)(ii) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order 2014 and constituted only about 6.5% of the amount claimed.
The taxing master considered the nature and importance of the petition, finding no novel issues warranting new jurisprudence, no proof of industry or research justifying Kshs. 3,240,000/=, and awarded Kshs. 200,000/=, roughly 6.5% of the claim. Guided by the discretionary and experience-based nature of taxation, the court held the quantum fell within the taxing master's judicious discretion and declined to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- A court will only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of an error of principle
- Questions of quantum in taxation belong to the taxing master's discretion, which the court on a reference will be slow to interfere with
- The value of the subject matter for instruction fees is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, failing which the taxing officer exercises discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter and other relevant circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The reference/application dated 19th March 2021 be and is hereby dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Peroh v Peroh & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8039 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8039 (KLR)13 Nov 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Francis Kimolo Kimatu & 59 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2022] KEELC 474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Petition No. 2 of 2018 (Reference re Notice of Motion dated 19th March 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/474/eng@2022-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.