JM Njenga & Company Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E136 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3723 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing item 1 under Schedule 5 instead of Schedule 1 (first scale) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014
- 2.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in declining to award interest under item 6 on the ground that interest can only be granted by a Judge
- 3.Whether the Court should interfere with the decision of the Taxing Master
Key legal issues
#Error of principle in choice of schedule for instruction fees (item 1)
The Taxing Officer erred: the Bill was for preparation of the Sale Agreement, not for vesting of title, so the advocate was entitled to fees commensurate with the value of the suit property upon completion of the Sale Agreement under Schedule 1 (first scale)
Applying Hayanga & Co. Advocates v Rayal Garden Developers Ltd, the court held that where an advocate is instructed to prepare an Agreement for Sale, full instruction fees are earned once the agreement is ready. The Bill in question was for preparation of the Sale Agreement, not completion of the conveyance, so the Taxing Officer's reliance on the non-execution of the agreement by the purchaser and her recourse to Schedule 5 amounted to a misdirection on the correct principle.
Entitlement to interest on costs (item 6)
The Taxing Officer misdirected herself in holding that interest can only be granted by a Judge; interest under paragraph 7 is chargeable 30 days after service of a Bill of Costs that itself includes a claim for interest
Paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order permits an advocate to charge interest at 14% per annum from the expiration of one month from delivery of the bill, provided the claim for interest is raised before the bill is paid or tendered in full. The court read the provision as pegging interest on the client's non-compliance within 30 days of service, and required the bill served to be the same bill filed before the Taxing Officer.
Standard for interference with a Taxing Master's decision
Interference is warranted only on error of principle or where the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice
Relying on Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 20 Others Ex-Parte Muchiri W'Njuguna and Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3), the court reaffirmed that taxation is a matter of opinion based on experience and that the court will not substitute its own view merely because it differs; it must be satisfied the ruling was clearly wrong or vitiated by an error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- The Court will only interfere with a Taxing Master's decision where an error of principle is shown
- An advocate instructed to prepare an Agreement for Sale earns full instruction fees once the Agreement is ready, regardless of completion of the transaction
- Interest under paragraph 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order runs from 30 days after service of a Bill of Costs that includes a claim for interest
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Taxing Master in the Ruling delivered on 28/05/2024 as regards items 1 and 6 of the Advocates/Client Bill of Costs dated 30/11/2023 is set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs is referred back to another Taxing Officer for fresh taxation according to the principles enunciated in the judgment
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the Application
- 4.Mention before the Deputy Registrar on 28/05/2025 for further directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Alternative prayer that the Court itself re-tax items 1 and 6
The Court instead referred the Bill back to another Taxing Officer for fresh taxation rather than re-taxing the items itself
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore accordingly order that the decision of the Taxing Master in the Ruling delivered on 28/05/2024 as regards items 1 and 6 of the Applicant’s Advocates/Clients Bill of Costs dated 30/11/2023 be and is hereby set aside, and that the said Bill of Costs be referred back to another Taxing Officer for fresh taxation according to the principles enunciated herein. Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application.
the Advocate/Applicant earned and was entitled to be paid the commensurate amount considering the value of the of suit property upon completion of the Sale Agreement
In efiect, if an advocate was instructed to prepare an Agreement for Sale, he would have earned his full instruction fees, as soon as the said Agreement for Sale was ready.
entitlement to interest is pegged on non-compliance by the Client in 30 days after receiving service of Bill of Costs, which bill must include a claim on interest
the Court will only interfere with the decision of a Taxing Master in cases where there has been shown to be an error in principle
Issues in the judgment
#Sale price stated inconsistently: grounds refer to Kesh 271,000,000 while the facts and submissions state Kshs. 270,000,000
Mention date given as 28/05/2025, the same date as the taxation Ruling under review, which appears to be an error
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 E136 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3723 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 12/06/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3723/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.