Shariff & 2 others v Kenya Railway Corporation (Environment & Land Case 002 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1444 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court cut a lawyer's bill because it missed dates on many items, but upheld the big fees — sloppy paperwork in bills of costs can be costly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Instruction fees under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014
The instruction fees of Kshs. 1,744,649 were properly taxed; the amount was drawn to scale considering the complexity of the matter, the duration of the case and the value of the claim
The court applied Schedule 6 of the 2014 Remuneration Order and the principles in Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates. Sitting on a reference, the court could not interfere unless the taxing officer misdirected himself on a matter of principle. Given the matter was filed in 2021, determined on 06/07/2023, and the amount the plaintiffs would have recovered, the fee was not whimsical.
Fees for interlocutory applications where instruction fees have been awarded
Separate fees for interlocutory applications are properly awardable under paragraph C(viii) of Schedule 6, which prescribes a minimum of Kshs 5,000
The applicant contended no separate fees were due once instruction fees were paid. The court held that paragraph C(viii) of Schedule 6 expressly provides for a minimum fee for presenting or opposing any interlocutory application not otherwise provided for in the Order, and declined to interfere with the taxing master's findings on items 3, 4 and 5.
Compliance with Rule 69(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order on particulars of services
Omission of day, month and year in numerous items was prejudicial, went to the substance of the bill, and could not be excused; the awards on those items were set aside
Although the respondent argued the point was new and the omission harmless, the court held 'shall' in Rule 69(1) is mandatory. The missing particulars concerned services such as registry visits for which no receipts existed, making full disclosure imperative. The failure was prejudicial and could not be saved by Article 159(2) of the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- A court will only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where an error of principle is demonstrated or the award is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to an injustice
- The word 'shall' in a statutory provision is mandatory and imports a command, not permission
- Non-compliance with Rule 69(1) on particulars in a bill of costs goes to substance and cannot be cured by Article 159 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.Items no.21,22,23,25,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,63,65,67,68,69,70,71,74,75,78,79,80,82,83,84,85,86,89 and 116 are vacated/set aside
- 2.The bill of costs is taxed off in an all-inclusive sum of Kshs.2,417,313.70
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B of the Civil Procedure Act, Rules 11 and 50 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (reference against taxing officer's ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shariff & 2 others v Kenya Railway Corporation (Environment & Land Case 002 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1444 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1444/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.