Machakos County Government v Kabaka t/a Kabaka and Associates Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in basing instruction fees on the pleaded sum of Kshs. 4,818,988,535 rather than an alleged settlement of 450 acres
No error of principle; the alleged settlement was not proved and the pleadings disclosed the value of the subject matter.
The court held that the value of the subject matter may be ascertained from pleadings, judgment or settlement, depending on the stage the proceedings reached. A settlement, if proved, displaces reliance on pleadings. The applicant alleging a settlement was bound to prove it under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, but did not avail the deed of settlement, relying only on affidavits and counter-allegations. In the absence of a proved settlement or judgment, the taxing officer rightly turned to the pleadings, which disclosed the rates claimed.
Whether the awarded instruction fees were manifestly excessive so as to justify interference
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the award was excessive or based on an error of principle.
Taxation is a discretionary function and a court will not interfere merely because a party thinks the award too high or too low. Interference requires demonstration of an error of principle or an award manifestly excessive or low amounting to injustice. Since the taxing officer derived the value from the pleadings in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014, no basis for interference was established.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for instruction fees may be ascertained from pleadings, judgment or settlement; where there is a judgment or settlement, pleadings are no longer relevant, and a party alleging a settlement bears the burden of proving it by production of the deed of settlement.
- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the award was manifestly excessive or too low as to amount to an injustice.
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 22nd November 2019 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a taxing officer's decision under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014
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.
- Tuguta Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 454 of 2009) [2026] KEELC 4837 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4837 (KLR)23 Jul 2026
- Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)20 Jun 2025
- Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Importers and Exporters Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5335 (KLR)20 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Machakos County Government v Kabaka t/a Kabaka and Associates Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Machakos ELC Misc. Appl. No. 387 of 2017 (Chamber Summons dated 22nd November 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/151/eng@2024-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.