Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8296 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Narok upheld a Ksh.2 million advocate fee award, ruling the client's challenge was filed too late on the merits and lacked any error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection raising limitation under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order was merited
Not merited. The applicant requested reasons on 18th December 2024 within the 14-day period under Paragraph 11(1), received the certified ruling and reasons on 22nd January 2025, and filed the reference on 30th January 2025 within 14 days of receipt.
The court held the objection was a pure point of law capable of disposing the matter, but on the facts the 14-day period under Paragraph 11(2) runs from receipt of the taxing officer's written reasons. Since the certified copy and reasons were only supplied on 22nd January 2025, the reference filed on 30th January 2025 was within time and the applicant could not be faulted.
Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing the instruction fees at Ksh.1,000,000
No error established. The value of the subject matter was unascertainable and the taxing master properly exercised discretion considering the nature of the matter, interest of the parties and labour required.
The underlying matter (Narok ELCJR No. 25 of 2017) was withdrawn after negotiations without orders as to costs, making the subject value unascertainable. Applying the settled principles, the taxing master's discretion on quantum is not lightly disturbed. The court found the instruction fee of Ksh.1,000,000 was not excessive and declined to interfere.
Whether items Nos. 7, 11, 15 and 28 on service were wrongly allowed at Ksh.3,000 contrary to a Ksh.1,400 cap
No. Service outside three kilometres of the High Court is not capped at Ksh.1,400 but is computed on additional kilometres; service was in Narok while the advocate was based in Nairobi.
Reading Schedule 6(B) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014, service within three kilometres attracts Ksh.1,400, with every additional kilometre attracting a reasonable amount not exceeding Ksh.35 per kilometre. Since service upon the client was in Narok, some 150km from Nairobi, the award of Ksh.3,000 was not exorbitant.
Whether items Nos. 16, 19, 21, 29, 44, 50 and 51 for hearing of applications at Ksh.15,000 were excessive
No interference warranted; the advocate attended physical court and the items were drawn to scale.
The court considered the attendance fees under the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 and, given the attendance was in physical court at Narok, found the amounts were drawn to scale and declined to interfere with the award.
Whether the 50% increase on instruction fees was erroneous
No. The 50% addition on instruction fees was proper since party and party costs had been assessed.
Relying on Dennis KN Magare & Another v Armajit Singh Gahir, 50% is added on instruction fees where party and party costs have been assessed. The impugned ruling of 18th December 2024 also assessed the Party and Party Bill of Costs, so the court would not fault the taxing officer for the additional 50%.
Legal principles established
#- An objector's time to file a reference under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order runs from receipt of the written reasons/certified ruling, not from delivery of the ruling
- Where service under Schedule 6(B) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 is beyond three kilometres of the High Court, the charge is not capped at Ksh.1,400 but calculated by additional kilometres
- Where the value of the subject matter is unascertainable, the taxing officer's discretion is paramount and a judge will not interfere merely because he disagrees with the figure
- A judge may only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where it is based on an error of principle or where the fee awarded is so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of an error of principle
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 9th May 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs to the Client/Applicant
- 2.The Chamber Summons Application dated 30th January 2025 (Reference) is dismissed entirely with an order that each party bear its own costs
- 3.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Client/Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 - reference to a Judge against a Taxing Officer's decision
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 E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8296 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons Application dated 30th January 2025 (Taxation Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8296/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.