Njoroge t/a Agnes W Njoroge & Company Advocates v Mwicigi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E251 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5963 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable remuneration order for services rendered before 2014
Items 1 to 71 should have been taxed under the 2009 Remuneration Order since the suit was filed in 2006 and services were rendered before the 2014 Order came into force
The suit was filed in 2006 (Nairobi HCCC 872 of 2006, later ELC 177 of 2016) and services in items 1 to 71 predated the 2014 Order. Relying on Sumba and Kiambu Murutani, the court held the applicable order is the one in force when the suit was filed or instructions received. The taxing officer's use of the 2014 Order was an error of principle warranting interference.
Value of the subject matter for instruction fees
The value could not be taken from the judgment (claim was unliquidated), but the taxing officer erred in relying on a valuation report not procured with the client's participation
The court held the purchase price of Kshs. 10,000,000 in the judgment was not a fundamental issue there, and the claim was unliquidated. However, fairness required that if a valuation report was used, the client should have had an opportunity to produce her own; a joint valuation report would have been appropriate. This was an error of principle.
Failure to tax off Kshs. 680,000 paid in legal fees
The taxing officer erred in failing to tax off the admitted sum of Kshs. 680,000 already paid to the advocate
The payment of Kshs. 680,000 was admitted in writing by the advocate in a letter dated 18th October, 2023 and was not contested, yet it was not deducted from the taxed amount. This omission was a further ground supporting interference with the ruling.
Principles for interference with a taxing officer's discretion
The court applied the Premchand Raichand principles: interference requires a misdirection on principle or a manifestly extravagant assessment
The court recited the six principles from Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd, including that the taxing master's discretion must be exercised judicially, the value of subject matter considered, and no reference allowed unless a breach of principle is demonstrated. Finding errors of principle, the court held it was necessary to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- The applicable Advocates (Remuneration) Order for ascertaining instruction fees is the one operational at the time instructions were received / suit filed
- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's ruling where the officer erred in principle, including basing instruction fees on a valuation report introduced without the client's participation
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the taxing officer delivered on 26th February, 2025 is hereby set aside
- 2.The advocate-client bill of costs dated 12th November, 2024 is remitted for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge t/a Agnes W Njoroge & Company Advocates v Mwicigi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E251 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 10th March, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5963/eng@2025-08-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.