Muasa v Kisini Nzyuko & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4734 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a taxing officer's decision to calculate conveyancing legal fees based on the property's value, not a disputed lower agreed amount.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable schedule for conveyancing instruction fees
The Taxing Master correctly applied Schedule 1 first scale of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 to conveyancing work; she did not err in using the subject matter value of Kshs. 13,000,000.
The court noted that the bill arose out of conveyancing instructions relating to the sale of Machakos Municipality Block 2/415 valued per the agreement for sale, and held that the first scale of Schedule 1, calculated on consideration or value of the subject matter, was the applicable scale. The alleged retainer agreement fixing fees at Kshs. 100,000 was not proved, so it could not displace the schedule.
Standard for interfering with a Taxing Master's decision
Interference is warranted only on proof of an error of principle, capricious exercise of discretion, or an award manifestly excessive or low; none was shown here.
Relying on First American Bank of Kenya v Shah, Joreth Ltd v Kigano, Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W'Njuguna, Visser v Gubb and Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol, the court restated that taxation of costs is a matter of opinion and experience, and a judge will not alter fees merely because he would have allowed a different amount.
Proof of the alleged retainer agreement fixing costs at Kshs. 100,000
The alleged retainer agreement was not proved and could not be applied to displace the statutory scale.
The applicant contended the parties had agreed fees of Kshs. 100,000 each, but the court found no proof of a retainer agreement. Absent proof, the Advocates Remuneration Order schedules govern the fees payable for the conveyancing instructions.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.
- Conveyancing instruction fees arising from a sale of land are taxed under the first scale of Schedule 1 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014, calculated on the consideration or value of the subject matter.
- The court will interfere with a taxing master's ruling only when satisfied that the taxing master's view differs so materially from its own that it should be held to vitiate the ruling.
Court orders
#- 1.The application (Reference) is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muasa v Kisini Nzyuko & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4734 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Machakos Misc. Application (Reference) re Taxing Officer's Ruling dated 21st August 2024 in Misc. Application No. E016 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4734/eng@2025-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.