Stratman v Putzker (Environment & Land Case 3 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 681 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a lawyer's fee award from over Kshs. 666,000 to 200,000 because the taxing master guessed the land's value instead of using evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with the objection procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The applicant complied with the Rule 11 procedure, having served the statutory notice on the taxing officer before filing the chamber summons, so the application was procedurally merited
The court traced the Rule 11 procedure: notice of objection within 14 days, reasons from the taxing officer, then a chamber summons to a judge. Although the court could not trace the reasons forwarded by the Taxing Master, the statutory notice dated 19th August 2024 was served and the application followed it, satisfying the laid-down procedure.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in assessing instruction fees at Kshs. 500,000/-
Yes - the award was based on assumptions about the property's size, location and alleged appreciation without any valuation report; instruction fees reduced to Kshs. 150,000/-
The taxing master relied on assumed appreciation of the suit property's value since 2012 and on its size and location, without a valuation report. The court held that the value at the time of instituting the suit governs instruction fees and that the taxing master based her award on assumption, amounting to an error of principle; it also factored in the 75% summary-determination discount under Schedule 6 Part A(1)(b).
Whether getting up fees of Kshs. 166,666.67/- were properly awarded
The award was reduced to Kshs. 50,000/-, being one-third of the reduced instruction fees, since the suit had been set down for formal proof before the consent was recorded
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 allows a getting up fee of not less than one-third of the instruction fee where issues are joined, and the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial. Default judgment had been entered and the matter set down for formal proof before the consent, evidencing preparation; hence a getting up fee was due but scaled down proportionately to the reduced instruction fee.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Where the value of the subject matter is ascertainable, instruction fees should be computed on the value of the property at the time of instituting the suit, and a taxing master cannot assume appreciation in value without a valuation report
- Where a suit is determined in a summary manner without full trial, the instruction fee is 75% of the fee chargeable under Schedule 6 item 1(b), and no getting up fee is chargeable unless the taxing officer is satisfied the case was prepared for trial
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27th August, 2024 is found to be meritorious and allowed, setting aside the decision of the Taxing Master dated the 4th February, 2021
- 2.The bill of costs dated 18th October, 2022 re-assessed to Kshs. 150,000/- for instruction fees and Kshs. 50,000/- for getting up fees
- 3.The Taxing Officer directed to re-calculate the new assessed amount and issue the new Certificate of Costs
- 4.The other items to remain as taxed
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Rule 11 of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stratman v Putzker (Environment & Land Case 3 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 681 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 27th August, 2024 (ELC at Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/681/eng@2025-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.