Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8295 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a Ksh.421,415 legal bill, ruling that the 14-day deadline to challenge taxed costs starts only when written reasons are received.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection on limitation/jurisdiction was merited
Not merited - the Reference was filed within 14 days of receipt of written reasons on 22nd January 2025
Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the ARO requires notice of objection and supply of written reasons by the taxing officer; the 14-day period to file a reference runs from receipt of those reasons. The Applicant requested reasons on 18th December 2024 and received the certified copy and reasons on 22nd January 2025, filing the Reference on 27th January 2025, within time. Upload to the CTS portal did not substitute formal supply of reasons.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Ksh.200,000
Yes - the award was arrived at on the wrong principle, warranting interference
Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer has discretion, but must set out the basic fee and explain reasons for any increase. The suit had not proceeded to full trial and the officer did not elaborate the considerations taken into account in awarding Ksh.200,000 instruction fees, contrary to the principles in First American Bank v Shah and the Ukwala Supermarket principles; the award was therefore set aside.
Whether items 3, 8, 9, 14, 4, 10, 6, 7, 12 and 13 were properly taxed
Several items were taxed out of scale: correspondence items excessive, copying items not provided for, service capped at Ksh.1,400, attendance capped at Ksh.2,100 and Ksh.5,000 respectively
Schedule 7 does not provide for correspondence letters or making copies, so those items ought to have been taxed off. Service done by email post-Covid should have been at the capped Ksh.1,400. Attendance figures of Ksh.7,100 and Ksh.10,000 were excessive against the scale figures of Ksh.2,100 and Ksh.5,000, after which the cumulative fees attract the 50% advocate-client increase.
Legal principles established
#- The 14-day period under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order runs from receipt of the written reasons/certified ruling of the taxing officer, not from delivery of the ruling
- A judge may interfere with a taxing officer's decision where the instruction fee was arrived at on a wrong principle or without setting out reasons
- Advocate-client costs under Schedule 7 Part B are the party-and-party fees under Part A increased by 50%
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 9th May 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Client/Applicant
- 2.The Chamber Summons Application dated 27th January 2025 is allowed entirely in terms of prayers Nos 1 and 2
- 3.The Ruling and Order of the Taxing Officer delivered on 21st December 2024 taxing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs at Ksh.421,415/50 is set aside and the Bill is to be taxed afresh
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the Reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 - 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, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E018 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8295 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons Application dated 27th January 2025 (Narok ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8295/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.