Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons applications dated 9th November, 2021 and 12th April, 2022)· [2025] KEELC 587 (KLR)

Superior Homes (Kenya) PLC v Water Resources Authority (WRA); Gems Management Limited & 8 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 12 of 2019 & Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2018 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 587 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
10 February 2025
2,539 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment determines two cross Chamber Summons applications (references) challenging the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 14th July 2021 on the Petitioner's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 12th November 2019, arising from a consolidated constitutional petition and judicial review in which special damages of Kshs. 466,955,673 were claimed. The Respondent sought setting aside, variation or reference back of over forty items of the Bill, contending that the Taxing Master failed to consider Schedule VI (1)(j) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014, mis-found disbursements, awarded an excessive Kshs. 500,000 as Instruction Fees, and erred on folios, court attendance and service items. The Petitioner in turn sought review, revision or variation of Items No. 1, 2 and V.A.T., complaining that the value of the subject matter was ignored and that Instruction Fees of only Kshs. 500,000 and Getting Up fees of Kshs. 75,000 were erroneously low. Framing two issues, the court applied Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 and the established jurisprudence (Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates; Republic v Ministry of Agriculture ex parte Muchiri W'Njuguna; Violet Ombaka Otieno v Moi University; Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd) that a taxing officer's decision may only be disturbed on an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive or so low as to cause injustice. Finding that neither party demonstrated with precision any misapprehension or misapplication of the law, and that the Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion (including the Getting Up fees at 15% of Instruction Fees), the court upheld the decision of 14th July 2021, dismissed both applications and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the award of Kshs. 500,000 as Instruction Fees and Kshs. 75,000 as Getting Up Fees was erroneous

Holding

The Taxing Officer did not err in principle; she had discretion to increase or decrease the amount awarded and the Getting Up fees of 15% of the Instruction Fees were proper

Reasoning

Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 permits the taxing officer to increase or reduce instruction fees in her discretion. For constitutional petitions, Schedule VI (j) requires consideration of the nature and importance of the petition, complexity, novelty, value of subject matter and time expended. The Taxing Officer noted no monetary award was made and significant preparation time was involved. Neither party demonstrated with precision how she misapplied the law or the applicable formula.

p. 5
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in taxing the listed items of the Bill of Costs

Holding

The Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion; the court declined to interfere with the amounts as taxed

Reasoning

On perusal of the Bill of Costs and the impugned Ruling, the Taxing Officer relied on Schedule VI (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 in calculating the sums and provided proper reasons for taxing the said amounts as she did. The parties failed to establish any error of principle warranting interference with her discretion.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle
  • Where the value of the subject matter cannot be ascertained from pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing officer may use his discretion to assess instruction fees considering the nature and importance of the cause and all other relevant circumstances
  • Getting Up fees are properly awarded at 15% of the Instruction Fees awarded

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons applications dated the 9th November, 2021 and 12th April, 2022 are dismissed
  2. 2.The Taxing Officer's decision dated the 14th July, 2021 is upheld
  3. 3.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (1)(j)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (4)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (4)(f)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (6)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (general - instruction fees)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014Schedule VI (Getting Up fees - 15%)

Cases cited (4)

  • Joreth Limited V Kigano & Associates
    [2002] eKLR
  • Republic v Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others: Exparte Muchiri W'Njuguna & Others
    (2006) eKLR
  • Violet Ombaka Otieno & 12 Others v Moi University
    [2021] eKLR
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd
    [1972] E.A. 162
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference/review and revision jurisdiction of the High Court over the Taxing Master's decision (Taxing Officer's Ruling of 14th July 2021)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Superior Homes (Kenya) PLC v Water Resources Authority (WRA); Gems Management Limited & 8 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 12 of 2019 & Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2018 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 587 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons applications dated 9th November, 2021 and 12th April, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/587/eng@2025-02-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.