Kavithi v Attorney General & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 1368 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 4081 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs 500,000 instruction fee but sent disputed billing items back for re-taxation, showing courts will fix errors without overturning everything.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the award of Kshs 500,000/= instruction fees was made in error of principle
The objection on instruction fees failed; the taxing officer validly considered the value of the subject matter, the year of institution, the period of abatement and the dismissal for want of prosecution.
The court applied the Premchand principles and Joreth factors, noting the suit was instituted in 2013, involved a 5-acre parcel valued at Kshs 12,000,000/= per acre, abated after seven years, and revival was dismissed in 2023. The taxing master weighed these factors and there was no evidence of a capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion, so the court declined to interfere with Item 1.
Whether Items 4, 5, 6, 18, 49, 50 and 97-104 were properly taxed
The objection on these items succeeded and they were remitted to the taxing officer for re-taxation, as the taxation was not adequately expounded, duplicated items were taxed separately, and disbursements lacked evidential support.
The Applicant contested the taxation of Items 4, 5, 6 and 18 as unexplained, contended Items 49 and 50 double-charged court attendance on the same date, and argued Items 97-104 (disbursements) lacked evidential support. The court found these contentions merited and remitted the items for re-taxation rather than disturbing the instruction fee.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference from taxation will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle, such as where costs allowed are so manifestly excessive as to show erroneous principles.
- The taxing master's discretion over instruction fees must be exercised judicially and not whimsically or capriciously.
Court orders
#- 1.The objection on Item No. 1 is dismissed
- 2.Item Nos. 4, 5, 6, 18, 49, 50 and 97-104 are remitted to the taxing officer for re-taxation
- 3.Costs to await the outcome of the taxation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from a taxing officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order (objection to taxation)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kavithi v Attorney General & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 1368 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 4081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4081/eng@2025-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.