Maina v Attorney General & 7 others (Environment & Land Case 486 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3677 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court cut a taxed legal bill by removing getting up fees, confirming that such fees are only chargeable once a case is confirmed for hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the instruction fee of Kshs. 1,500,000 was manifestly excessive where the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings
The Taxing Master did not err; the reasons for the award were clear, sound and self-explanatory, applying the Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates principles
The court held that where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing master has discretion to assess a just instruction fee guided by the Joreth factors. The Applicant's complaint that reasons were general was rejected; the court found the ruling's reasons clear and sound and declined to interfere with the discretion exercised.
Whether getting up fees were properly awarded where the suit was struck out before being confirmed for hearing
The award of getting up fees was erroneous; preparation for a preliminary objection and an application was not preparation for trial
Schedule 6A(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides no getting up fee is chargeable until a case is confirmed for hearing, and in unheard cases the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial. The suit was struck out on a preliminary objection; no additional witness statements or documents were filed, so the taxing master erred in awarding getting up fees.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion considering the nature and importance of the cause, the interests of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and other relevant circumstances
- No getting up fee is chargeable until a case has been confirmed for hearing, and in every case not heard the taxing officer must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial
Court orders
#- 1.The orders of the Taxing Master dated 26th August 2024 were set aside insofar as they awarded getting up fees
- 2.The court substituted its own total award of Kshs. 1,243,210/- (One million, two hundred and forty three thousand two hundred and ten shillings only)
- 3.The costs of the application were awarded against the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling under the Advocates Remuneration Order (Chamber Summons dated 9th September 2024); no specific constitutional provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Attorney General & 7 others (Environment & Land Case 486 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3677 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3677/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.