Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (two Chamber Summons Applications dated 12/08/2024 and 15/08/2024)· [2025] KEELC 741 (KLR)

Waweru v NIC Bank Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 175 of 2011) [2025] KEELC 741 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 February 2025
MOMogeni
2,007 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to change a lawyer's taxed fees, confirming judges rarely disturb a Taxing Master's decision unless clear legal errors are shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Thika (Mogeni J) determined two cross-references arising from the taxation of an advocate-client Bill of Costs dated 24/04/2024 by Taxing Officer Honourable Judith Omollo (DR) on 30/07/2024. The Taxing Master fixed minimum instruction fees at Kshs. 249,500/- based on a suit property value of Kshs. 12,500,000/- under Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(b) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, then exercised discretion to increase instruction fees to Kshs. 600,000/- and taxed getting up fees at Kshs. 200,000/-. The 1st Defendant, by Chamber Summons dated 12/08/2024, sought to stay or set aside the ruling or remit items 1-5 to a different Taxing Master, while the Plaintiff, by Chamber Summons dated 15/08/2024, sought enhancement of items 1-5 to Kshs. 6,000,000/- contending the award was so low as to amount to an injustice. Applying Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, the court held it could interfere only upon demonstrated error of principle or manifestly excessive fees. It found the Taxing Master considered the value of the subject matter, complexity, and duty and care, and committed no error of principle. Both applications were dismissed, with interest on the taxed sum at court rates from the date of taxation, and each party bearing its own costs of the applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Master's discretion was properly exercised

Holding

The Taxing Master properly applied Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, took the value of the suit property from the valuation report, considered complexity and care, and no error of principle was committed.

Reasoning

The Taxing Master calculated minimum instruction fees of Kshs. 249,500/- using the valuation of Kshs. 12,500,000/-, then increased fees to Kshs. 600,000/- based on complexity - the matter took over 10 years, the file was large, there were numerous interlocutory applications and four amendments to the Plaint. The court found the relevant taxation factors under Schedule VI clause 1 were considered and the award was reasonable.

p. 4
02

Whether the fees awarded were so low as to amount to an injustice (Plaintiff's reference)

Holding

Dismissed - the amounts awarded were reasonable and not excessive or unjust.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff sought enhancement to Kshs. 6,000,000/- contending the Taxing Master mainly considered the value of the subject matter and ignored urgency, care and labour, and length of papers. The court held the Taxing Master considered the value, complexity, and duty and care, so there was no error of principle and the award was neither excessive nor unjust.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court on reference cannot interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless an error of principle is shown or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive
  • A Taxing Master exercises judicial discretion, interferable with only where exercised capriciously or in abuse of correct legal principles
  • The Advocates Remuneration Order provides minimum instruction fees with discretion to increase based on complexity, exercised fairly and reasonably

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Defendant's Chamber Summons Application dated 12/08/2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Plaintiff's Chamber Summons Application dated 15/08/2024 is dismissed
  3. 3.Interest shall accrue at Court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs of their Application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Act (Cap. 16)Section 51
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014Paragraph 11(1) and (2); Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(b); Schedule VI Clause (1) proviso
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A

Cases cited (1)

  • Joreth Ltd Vs. Kigano & Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
On appeal from
Taxing Officer/Deputy Registrar (Honourable Judith Omollo, DR)
Plaintiff's Bill of Costs dated 24/04/2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51 of the Advocates Act and Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Waweru v NIC Bank Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 175 of 2011) [2025] KEELC 741 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (two Chamber Summons Applications dated 12/08/2024 and 15/08/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/741/eng@2025-02-20

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