County Government of Nyamira v Omesa Mogeni & Company (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6063 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the reference - notice of objection under Paragraph 11(1) ARO
The reference is properly before the Court; the Applicant filed a notice of objection in the e-Filing Portal on 6th January 2025, acknowledged by the Deputy Registrar
The Respondent argued no notice of objection was filed, depriving the Court of jurisdiction. The Court perused the record in the taxation file and verified the notice of objection dated 27th December 2024 was filed and endorsed. Since the objection covered items 1, 4 and 6, the reference was properly commenced.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle on instruction fees and getting up fees (item 1)
Yes - the Taxing Officer failed to identify the subject matter and its value, and merely increased party and party fees by one half without judicial evaluation
The petition concerned a boundary and revenue dispute over Keroka Town, not ownership or valuation of plots. The Taxing Officer relied on a valuation report not before the trial court, and simply applied party and party fees plus 50%, contrary to the Supreme Court's guidance that disputed items must be judiciously evaluated. This was an error of principle warranting interference.
Whether taxation of item 4 (service) should stand
No - no reasons were given for the Kshs 10,000 awarded, contrary to the requirement of judicious evaluation under Rule 16 ARO
The Applicant complained that no reasons justified the award under item 4. A reading of the ruling showed no explanation of how the figure was reached. The issue is not reasonableness but how the figure was arrived at; the item was set aside for fresh taxation.
Legal principles established
#- In assessing advocate-client costs under Part B of Schedule VI of the ARO, a Taxing Officer must exercise discretion judiciously and is not simply to increase party and party instruction fees by one half
- Failure to correctly identify and ascribe value to the subject matter of the suit for purposes of taxation is an error of principle warranting judicial interference
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may exercise discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Officer's decision dated 27th December 2024 taxing item number 1 (instruction fees and getting up fees at Kshs 75,000,000 and Kshs 11,250,000 respectively) is set aside
- 2.The Taxing Officer's decision dated 27th December 2024 taxing item number 4 (service at Kshs 10,000) is set aside
- 3.Item numbers 1 and 4 of the Respondent's Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 30th August 2024 be taxed afresh
- 4.In re-taxing, the Taxing Officer to bear in mind that the subject matter of Nyamira ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023 was the delimitation, demarcation and recognition of the boundaries of Keroka Town and who should collect revenue in Keroka Town
- 5.Each party shall bear own costs of this reference
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (ELC Nyamira)
- Nyamira ELC Misc. Application No. E011 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a Judge from the decision of a Taxing Officer
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Nyamira v Omesa Mogeni & Company (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nyamira ELCL Misc. Application No. E002 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6063/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.