Kenya Electricity Transmission Company v Nyandoro & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed an advocate's challenge to a taxed legal bill, confirming courts rarely interfere with a Taxing Master's decisions unless a legal principle was clearly misapplied.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in awarding getting up fees, attendance costs and the 50% increase plus VAT
No error was established; the getting up fees were justified as the matter proceeded to hearing, attendance costs were reduced by the Taxing Officer, and the 50% increase and VAT were duly provided for in law
The matter had been heard and determined, so getting up fees as one third of instruction fees were justified per the Court of Appeal in Lucy Waithira. Attendance costs had already been reduced from the amounts drawn. The 50% increase is provided for under Schedule 7B(c) and adding 16% VAT was proper. The Applicant admitted in the Bill that Kshs. 784,000 had been paid, and that payment could not be deducted unless shown to be the agreed fee for the whole matter.
Whether the reference court may interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion on quantum
Interference is only warranted on an error in principle or where the award is manifestly high or low as to lead to an injustice; questions of quantum are for the taxing officer
Relying on Kenya Ports Authority Pension Scheme v Kinyua Muyaa and Lusasi v APA Insurance (quoting Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara v Deposit Protection Fund Board and Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking), the court restated that a judge on a reference will not normally interfere with a taxing officer's discretion absent an error in principle, quantum questions being particularly for taxing officers.
Whether the Kshs. 784,000 already paid should be deducted from the taxed bill
The payment cannot be deducted from the taxed bill unless the Applicant demonstrates it was the agreed fees for the whole matter
The court noted that in the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs the Applicant admitted paying Kshs. 784,000, which the Respondent had deducted. The Applicant argued the further award of Kshs. 717,642.12 amounted to unjust enrichment, but the court held the admitted payment could not be deducted absent proof of an agreed global fee.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer's discretion on taxation will not be interfered with unless exercised capriciously, based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or excessively low as to amount to an injustice
- Getting up fees are justified where the matter was fixed for hearing, since the advocate is assumed to have prepared for the hearing
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with no orders on costs
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs)
- Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 7th December 2022 (Ngong' CMELC No. 25 of 2019)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; reference from taxation under the Advocates Act (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company v Nyandoro & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1392/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.