Peroh v Peroh & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8039 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs 800,000 instruction fee, confirming courts rarely disturb a Taxing Officer's decision absent a clear error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the instruction fee without recourse to the alleged value of the subject matter
No error of principle; the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings or judgment, so the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion under Schedule 6A(1)(b) and awarded Kshs 800,000/=.
Following Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates and Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, the value of the subject matter must be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. The judgment of 28th November 2023 attributed no pecuniary value to the suit property, and no valuation report was tendered. The Taxing Officer therefore rightly assessed the fee based on complexity, volume of work and duration (2019–2024). The claimed Kshs 40,625,342 investment figure was unsupported.
Whether the awards on getting-up fees, affidavits of service, copying charges, list of documents and court attendances disclosed misdirection
Each award matched the applicable scale rates in Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; mere disagreement with factual assessment is not an error of principle.
The court checked each disputed item against the schedule: getting-up fees at one-third of instruction fees met the statutory minimum; affidavits of service at Kshs 240 matched paragraph 4(g); copying at Kshs 25 per folio matched paragraph 5(a); court attendance awards were within discretion under paragraph 7(d). Quantum-based objections without demonstration of a wrong principle cannot justify interference.
Legal principles established
#- A court can only interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision where there is an error of principle or where the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may use discretion to assess a just instruction fee
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer of 9th December 2024 is upheld as properly arrived at within discretion and consistent with law and principle
- 2.The Chamber Summons Application dated 14th January 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014; Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peroh v Peroh & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8039 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 14th January 2025 (arising from Kajiado ELC Case No. 89 of 2019: Michael Peroh v Ishmael Moshi Peroh & 3 Others). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8039/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.