Orago v Adede (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7552 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that taxing officers must explain their fee decisions in detail, or lawyers can challenge the resulting costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Principles governing interference with a Taxing Master's decision
The jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; interference only upon error of principle or manifest injustice, with the burden on the Applicant.
The Court relied on Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara, Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking and Peter Muthoka, holding that quantum is the province of the taxing officer and the High Court will be slow to intervene unless the discretion was improperly exercised. The Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating misapplication of law, irrelevant considerations, omission of relevant factors, or a wrong schedule.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle on instruction, getting-up and other fees
Yes. The Kshs. 75,000/= instruction fee under 'other matters' lacked reasoning; getting-up fees were wrongly disallowed; other items were disallowed without reasons.
No analysis of the value of the subject matter (about 1.415 hectares) was undertaken despite the Joreth Ltd principle requiring consideration of nature, importance and the parties' interest. Since a defence was filed and the matter proceeded to full judgment, getting-up fees under Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6A were payable. Disallowances of drawings, copies and attendances ignored supporting affidavits of service.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
Partially granted: inadequate reasons declared, ruling set aside to the extent of disputed items, Bill remitted to a different Taxing Officer with directions, execution of the Certificate stayed.
Because the ruling reproduced figures without analytical justification, the Court could not interrogate the exercise of discretion. The appropriate remedy was remittal with directions to supply comprehensive reasons within 30 days, after which a substantive reference may lie if the Applicant remains aggrieved.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion unless there is an error of principle or the amount awarded is manifestly excessive or inordinately low.
- A Taxing Officer must give reasons demonstrating the factors considered in arriving at instruction fees; the absence of such reasoning is an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Taxing Officer did not furnish adequate reasons as required under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
- 2.Remittal of the matter to a different Taxing Officer to provide full and reasoned justification for each disputed item within thirty (30) days
- 3.Stay of execution of the Certificate of Costs pending compliance
- 4.Costs of the Reference to the Applicant
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) & (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 159 & 165 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Orago v Adede (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7552 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. 52 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7552/eng@2025-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.