Sehmi v Sehmi & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 659 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4707 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a Ksh. 485,000 fee award because the taxing officer used a document never produced in court to value the dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Defective annexures to the supporting affidavit
Objection upheld only for documents not already on the court record; pleadings already in court custody need not be expunged
Annexures must be sealed and marked with serial letters per the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Rules. However, most of the impugned documents (amended plaint, settlement agreement) were court pleadings already part of the record, so expunging them served no purpose, following the EACJ in the Zziwa taxation reference.
Filing the reference out of time
One-day delay excused and time extended
The ruling was emailed on 8th May 2023, so filing on 22nd May was only one day late due to technical issues; the averment was uncontroverted. The court invoked Article 259 of the Constitution to exercise its wide discretion to extend time and deem the application duly filed.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle
Yes - she relied on an unproduced settlement agreement to value the subject matter at Ksh. 30,000,000 and did not set out the basic instruction fee or reasons for the award
Judgment was not delivered and no settlement was reached in court; the value should have been drawn from the pleadings, i.e. the amount in the escrow account discernible from the Plaint. The ruling also failed to set out basic fees or specify factors considered, amounting to an error of principle warranting interference.
Whether the bills should have been taxed as a succession matter with one instruction fee
No error - the matter was an ELC civil matter and separate bills per group of defendants were proper
The suit was filed in the Environment and Land Court and taxed under Schedule 6, correctly. Where several defendants file one pleading and share counsel they should file one bill, but the Taxing Master properly grouped 1st-3rd defendants jointly and 4th and 5th separately.
Legal principles established
#- A court will only interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision where it is based on an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive
- The value of the subject matter for taxation must be ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, not extraneous unproduced documents
- The Taxing Master must first set out the basic instruction fee and give reasons for any increase or reduction
Court orders
#- 1.Objection to annexures upheld only in respect of documents not already part of the court record
- 2.Extension of time; the application deemed duly filed within time
- 3.The taxation ruling dated 2nd September 2021 set aside and returned for taxation before a different taxing officer of the court, who should take into account the principles outlined in the Ruling
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs for the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference/review of a Taxing Officer's ruling on a bill of costs under the Advocates Remuneration Order; Article 259 of the Constitution invoked for extension of time
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sehmi v Sehmi & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 659 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4707 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons application dated 19th May 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4707/eng@2024-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.