Limo & Njoroge Advocates v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8499 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court found the Taxing Master made errors in calculating legal fees and ordered a fresh taxation before a new Taxing Master.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error of principle in applying Schedule 6(1)(j) instead of 1(c) as read with 1(b)
The Court found errors of principle warranting interference with the Taxing Master's ruling of 4th July 2024
The Court reaffirmed the Joreth and Muthoka principles that the starting point for taxation is the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and discretion under paragraph 1(j) applies only where no value is ascertainable. Although the Petition mentioned KES 914,595,037.00, the Court found the value was not judicially ascertainable because the claim remained unproven and declaratory in nature. Ultimately, in the Conclusion, the Court found errors of principle on the part of the Taxing Master and that the taxed fees were not reasonable under Schedule 6(j).
Whether the getting-up fee was properly taxed
The getting-up fee of KES 316,666.67 was a direct mathematical application of the prescribed one-third formula
The Taxing Master applied the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 provision that a getting-up fee is one-third of the instruction fee where a matter proceeds to hearing. The Court found no discretion or error of principle arose, and the Applicant's challenge to Item 22 was without merit on that basis.
Principles governing interference with a Taxing Master's decision
The High Court's role on a reference is supervisory, not appellate
Drawing on Kipkorir Tito & Kiara, Arthur v Nyeri Electricity, Muthoka v Ochieng and First American Bank v Shah, the Court restated that interference lies only for error of principle or a manifestly excessive/low result, with quantum questions primarily for taxing officers.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; only where not ascertainable may the taxing officer exercise discretion.
- A judge on a reference will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless there is an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
- Where an error of principle is disclosed, the normal practice is to remit the taxation for reassessment.
- A figure 'plucked from the air' without evidential foundation cannot form the basis of assessing instruction fees.
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference dated 12th July 2024 is allowed and the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs is remitted for taxation by a new Taxing Master
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) & (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a Taxing Master's ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Limo & Njoroge Advocates v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8499 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 12th July 2024 (Reference under Rule 11(1) & (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8499/eng@2025-12-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.