Muraya v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another (Environment & Land Case 113 of 2014) [2022] KEELC 3777 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Correct schedule for taxing instruction fees in a suit seeking to stop an auction of charged land
Schedule 6 (value-based scale) applied because the subject matter had a determinable value; the 'other matters' minimum of Kshs 75,000 was inapplicable
The applicants sought an injunction to stop sale of the suit property. The court held that an injunction relating to subject matter with value is taxed on that value. Schedule 6 for High Court proceedings was the correct schedule, and direction (b) applied since the respondent filed a defence and the suit was resolved without full trial.
Correct value of the subject matter for assessing instruction fees
The taxing officer erred by using Kshs 50,000,000/=, a loan secured by two properties, and a sale agreement relating to a different plot; the correct value was the respondent's purchase price of Kshs 29,850,000/=
The Kshs 50 million loan covered two parcels, and the May 6, 2014 sale agreement concerned subdivision No 12100, not the suit property (No 12101). The respondent, as successful bidder, was defending her purchase of Kshs 29,850,000/=, which the court took as the value she attributed to the property.
Standard of interference on a reference from taxation
The court applied the Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara principle: interference only where the taxing officer erred in principle
The court cited the Court of Appeal's guidance in Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board and Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, holding that questions purely of quantum are for the taxing officer and the court interferes only in exceptional cases. Here an error of principle was found in the valuation basis, justifying intervention.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference from taxation will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion unless there was an error in principle; questions of quantum are for the taxing officer except in exceptional cases
- Every suit has a subject matter capable of valuation, including suits for injunction, unless it is a loose declaration of rights not pegged to anything of value
Court orders
#- 1.Setting aside the taxation on instruction fees as it was based on the wrong quantification of the subject matter
- 2.Remitting the advocate's bill back to the taxing officer with direction to tax the bill based on Kshs 29,850,000/= as the value of the subject matter
- 3.No orders as to the costs of this reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge from a decision of the taxing officer
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.
- Odunga & Associates Advocates v Inuka Afrika Properties Limited (Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3629 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3629 (KLR)11 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muraya v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another (Environment & Land Case 113 of 2014) [2022] KEELC 3777 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3777/eng@2022-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.