Abdullahi Gitari & Odhiambo Advocates LLP v County Government of Wajir (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4800 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Kshs. 10 million fee award against Wajir County Government, confirming that challenging a taxing officer requires proving an error of principle with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000
No error of principle was established; the taxing officer properly exercised discretion under Paragraph 3, Schedule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order where the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable
The court restated the principles in Premchand Raichand and Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara: interference is warranted only on an error of principle or where the award is so excessive as to amount to injustice. The Applicant alleged the subject matter value was ascertainable from the pleadings but did not place those pleadings before the court, so the claim of manifest excess was unsupported and the discretion exercised on complexity, time and importance could not be disturbed.
Whether the value of the subject matter was ascertainable from the pleadings
The Applicant failed to prove this; no pleadings were produced before the court to aid in ascertaining the value
The Applicant contended the instruction fee should have been pegged to the value of the subject matter, being a fine range of not less than two million and not more than four million shillings under Section 143 of EMCA. However, despite averring in affidavit and submissions that the value was ascertainable from the pleadings, the Applicant did not adduce the pleadings as evidence, leaving nothing upon which the court could determine the alleged value.
Legal principles established
#- On a reference from taxation, the judge will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretionary decision unless it is shown that the taxing officer erred in principle, an example being costs so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of erroneous principles
- An advocate is entitled to fees once instructed, retained or employed by a client
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 7th February 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from the decision of the Taxing Officer (Hon. Emmanuel Mumia, Chairperson) under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdullahi Gitari & Odhiambo Advocates LLP v County Government of Wajir (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E028 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 7th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4800/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.