Waiguru v Kimani (Environment and Land Appeal E188 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1373 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the instruction fee of Kshs. 50,000/= awarded by the Tribunal was justified
It was erroneous; the correct instruction fee under Schedule 8 paragraph 7(2)(a) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014, given a subject matter value of Kshs. 96,000/=, is Kshs. 22,500/= on the higher scale
The court applied the principle that a taxing officer's decision may only be disturbed for an error of principle or manifest excess. The Tribunal awarded instruction fees of Kshs. 50,000/= without regard to the value of the subject matter, which was Kshs. 96,000/=, being the annual rent. The statutory instruction fee for that value under Schedule 8 paragraph 7(2)(a) is Kshs. 22,500/= on the higher scale. Failing to consider subject matter value was an error of principle justifying interference.
Whether getting up fees of Kshs. 25,000/= (half the instruction fee) were properly assessed
The Tribunal erred in principle; getting up fees should be not less than one-third of the instruction fee, here Kshs. 7,500/= on instruction fees of Kshs. 22,500/=
Relying on Schedule 8 paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014, the court held that where issues are joined by the pleadings, a getting up fee is allowed in addition to the instruction fee but shall be not less than one-third of the instruction fee allowed on taxation. Assessing getting up fees at half the instruction fee, and on an inflated instruction fee, was an error of principle.
Whether the firm of Simon Kiragu & Co. Advocates, having come on record on 16th January 2020, was entitled to fees in items 3 to 50 of the bill
The contention fails; costs belong to the party, and where there has been a change of Advocates only one bill is drawn for the whole suit
The court held that costs are awarded to the party and not to the Advocate, and only one bill is drawn for the whole suit. The change of Advocates mid-matter does not disentitle the party to the full costs of the proceedings; the Advocate finally on record draws a single bill as submitted under the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive
- Getting up fees flow directly from instruction fees and shall not be less than one-third of the instruction fee allowed on taxation
- Costs are awarded to the party and not the Advocate, and only one bill is drawn for the whole suit notwithstanding a change of Advocates
- It is an error of principle for a taxing master to fail to take into account the value of the subject matter in assessing instruction fees
Court orders
#- 1.Instruction fees assessed at Kshs. 22,500/=
- 2.Getting up fees at Kshs. 7,500/=
- 3.Total costs assessed at Kshs. 229,000/=
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Murang'a)
- BPRT Case No. 26 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Landlord and Tenant (Business Premises) regime
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waiguru v Kimani (Environment and Land Appeal E188 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1373 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Business Premises Rent Tribunal Appeal from BPRT Case No. 26 of 2017 (Murang'a). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1373/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.