Maengwe t/a GM Maengwe & Company Limited v Mokal Investments Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8590 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court threw out a Kshs 2 million legal fees ruling because the Taxing Officer used the wrong fee schedule for a magistrates' court case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer relied on the wrong schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Yes - the suit was filed in the Chief Magistrate's Court, so Schedule 7 applied; taxation under Schedule 6 was an error of principle
It was undisputed that the advocate acted for the client in Kericho CM ELC Case No. E064 of 2022, filed before the Kericho Chief Magistrate's Court. The Taxing Officer taxed under Schedule 6, which covers High Court matters. The applicable schedule was Schedule 7, covering subordinate court proceedings. Reliance on the wrong schedule is an error of principle, and once found, the entire decision must be set aside.
Whether the bill of costs was improperly commenced in breach of Paragraph 13 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
No - the advocate complied by filing the bill of costs in a miscellaneous cause
The court perused the record and found the advocate commenced proceedings by filing the bill of costs dated 13th February, 2023, which was then taxed. Consistent with Paragraph 13(3) and the authorities (Evans Thiga Gaturu; Chairman CDF Suna East), filing the bill in a miscellaneous cause satisfies the provision. The contention of improper commencement therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge will not normally interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the costs
- Failure to ascertain or correctly ascribe the value of the subject matter, or basing instruction fees on wrong principles, is an error of principle warranting interference
- An advocate-client bill of costs must be filed in a miscellaneous cause under Paragraph 13(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent/Applicant's application dated 16th May, 2024 is allowed
- 2.The Taxing Officer's decision delivered on 7th November, 2023 is set aside
- 3.The Bill of Costs dated 13th February, 2023 is remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer
- 4.The Respondent/Applicant shall have costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference from a Taxing Officer's decision to a Judge)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maengwe t/a GM Maengwe & Company Limited v Mokal Investments Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8590/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.