JM Njenga & Co Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E134 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court let an advocate challenge a late fee taxation ruling, finding the taxing officer wrongly valued property using its 1993 purchase price.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the reference was excusable
Yes - the Applicant was never notified of the ruling by email as the taxing officer had directed
The taxing officer's ruling had indicated it would be delivered by email because the court was indisposed, but no evidence showed an email was actually sent to the Applicant. The Applicant only learned of the ruling from the e-filing portal after the objection period lapsed. The court therefore found the delay reasonably explained and admitted the reference out of time in the interest of justice.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in valuing the subject matter for instruction fees
Yes - relying on the 1993 purchase price of Kshs. 1,840,000 was erroneous; she should have ascertained the value at the time of filing and could have summoned evidence under paragraph 13A of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The Applicant was instructed in 2021 on a property purchased in 1993 for Kshs. 1,840,000. Land prices increase over time as a matter of public knowledge. Though the valuation report lacked party consent, the taxing officer had power under paragraph 13A to call other evidence of value. Reliance solely on the purchase price was therefore an error of principle vitiating items 1 and 63.
Whether combining items 1 and 63 for instruction fees was erroneous
Yes - a counter-claim is a separate suit attracting separate instruction fees
Item 1 related to acting for the plaintiff in the main suit while item 63 related to defending a counter-claim by the 6th Defendant. Following Project Innovations Limited, the court held a counter-claim is a separate suit whose instruction fees must be taxed independently; consolidating the two items was an error of principle.
Whether the disallowed correspondence items and interest claims should succeed
No - the unsupported items and the interest claim both failed
The court perused the virtual court record and found no evidence supporting the correspondence items. The misdated court attendance under item 25 was the Applicant's own clerical error. Interest is a discretionary matter per Otieno Ragot; the taxing officer exercised her discretion in not awarding it and no improper exercise was argued.
Legal principles established
#- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is so manifestly excessive as to suggest an error of principle
- Instruction fees should be computed on the value of the subject matter at the time the suit was filed, and the taxing officer may call for evidence to ascertain that value
- A counter-claim is a separate suit and attracts separate instruction fees taxable independently of the main suit
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is admitted out of time in the interest of justice
- 2.Items 1 and 63 of the Advocate/Client bill of costs are set aside and submitted to another taxing officer for re-taxation
- 3.Costs to await the outcome of the taxation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a taxing officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JM Njenga & Co Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E134 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 17th October 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4138/eng@2025-05-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.