Vaghela v County Government of Kakamega (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed an advocate's challenge to taxed costs, ruling courts won't change a taxing officer's decision without proof of a clear legal error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interference with taxing officer's discretion on instruction fees
No error of principle demonstrated; the award of Kshs. 300,000/= stands as the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from pleadings, judgment or settlement and the taxing officer properly exercised her discretion.
The claim was for forfeiture of a lease for non-development; no value was disclosed in the pleadings or at withdrawal. The valuation report of Kshs. 65 million was produced only for taxation and was inadmissible as evidence of the value. The applicant did not plead complexity or show how the award was too low, so the discretion exercised was not vitiated.
Entitlement to getting up fees (item 2)
Getting up fees was not awardable because the parties did not demonstrate that the case had been fully prepared for trial, even though it had been confirmed for hearing.
Schedule 6 paragraph 2(ii) requires the taxing officer to be satisfied the case was prepared for trial. The court found the taxing officer misdirected herself in denying the fees solely because the suit did not proceed to full hearing, but still concluded the fees were not awardable since compliance documents were not confirmed as filed and served and preparation for trial was not demonstrated.
Awards on items 24 and 25 (attendances)
The award of Kshs. 1,900/= per attendance was proper as the events were brief mentions not exceeding half an hour.
The record showed the matter came up for mention on 24/11/2022 and 22/2/2023 for directions on compliance documents, exercises that could not have taken more than ten minutes. The amount awarded corresponds to attendance before the judge for half an hour or less under paragraph 7(d) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown to be based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or too low as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- The value of the subject matter for purposes of instruction fees is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, not from evidence such as a valuation report filed at taxation.
- A valuation report filed only at the taxation stage and not forming the basis of the parties' claim should not be applied in taxation.
- Getting up fees is chargeable where the case has been confirmed for hearing AND the taxing officer is satisfied the case has been prepared for trial; confirmation for hearing does not equate to preparation for trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (reference against a taxing officer's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vaghela v County Government of Kakamega (Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega ELC Case No. E034 of 2022 (Reference against decision of the taxing officer of 8th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8258/eng@2025-11-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.