JM Njenga & Company Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E129 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 2857 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed advocate fee calculations must use the value pleaded in court documents, dismissing a law firm's challenge to its taxed fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle by valuing the subject matter at the purchase price of Kshs.45 million in the pleadings instead of the later valuation report of Kshs.1.1 billion
No error in principle. Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014 requires value to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and the Taxing Officer did so, correctly exercising her discretion.
Schedule 6 requires the value of the subject matter to be drawn from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. The Taxing Officer relied on the Kshs.45,000,000 purchase price pleaded in the Amended Plaint and exercised her discretion lawfully. The valuation report was filed later; the Masore Nyang'au decision permitting recourse to other evidence was persuasive only and not binding. The Applicant failed to show how the calculation was erroneous.
Whether the Getting Up fees under item 83, pegged on the instruction fee, were correctly taxed
Yes; since the instruction fee under item 1 was properly assessed, the Getting Up fees (not less than one-third of the instruction fee) were correctly determined.
Schedule 6 Paragraph (2)(i) provides that getting up fees shall be allowed in addition to the instruction fee and shall not be less than one-third of the instruction fee allowed on taxation. As the court upheld the instruction fee, the getting up fee pegged to it stood, and the court upheld the Taxing Officer's determination on item 83.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred by failing to award interest under item 174
No; the parent court's judgment did not award interest, so the silence of the Taxing Officer's ruling on interest was not an error.
The Applicant contended that the Taxing Master's Ruling was silent on interest under item 174, amounting to a dereliction of duty. The court noted, however, that the judgment in the parent suit did not award interest, hence there was no basis for the Taxing Officer to award interest, and no error of principle arose.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- The value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and where not ascertainable the taxing officer may exercise discretion to assess a just fee.
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the determination of the Taxing Officer as regards items (1) and (83) of the Bill of Costs in respect of Instruction and Getting Up fees respectively
- 2.Dismissed the chamber summons application with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance review of a Taxing Master's ruling under the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014; no constitutional or statutory provision expressly invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JM Njenga & Company Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E129 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 2857 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 1st July 2024 (arising from taxation in Nairobi ELC No. 189 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2857/eng@2025-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.