Igwe General Stores Limited & 2 others v Board of Trustees, National Social Security Fund & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E008 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 194 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a taxing officer must base legal fees on the Kshs.100 million judgment value and cannot deny getting-up fees just because a case was decided on written documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees under item 1(a)
The taxing officer erred by taking the instructions to be for setting aside judgment rather than prosecution of the petition, and by failing to use the Kshs.100,000,000/= awarded in damages as the value of the subject matter; this was an error of principle warranting setting aside the award
The court found it indisputable that the judgment awarded the applicant Kshs.100,000,000/= in damages, which was the correct value of the subject matter for taxation post-judgment. The taxing officer instead proceeded on the basis that instructions were to set aside judgment and that the value could not be ascertained. Citing Peter Muthoka and Kamunyori, the court held that failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter is an error of principle, justifying interference with the taxation of item 1(a).
Whether the taxing officer erred by wholly taxing off getting-up fees under item 2
The taxing officer fundamentally erred; getting-up fees are awardable even where the hearing was by affidavit evidence and written submissions, not only where viva voce evidence is led
The respondent argued getting-up fees were inapplicable because the petition was disposed of by written submissions. Relying on Ngatia & Associates Advocates v Interactive Gaming & Lotteries Limited, which endorsed Nguruman Limited v Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, the court held that whether the hearing was by affidavits or viva voce evidence is immaterial to the entitlement to a getting-up fee. The court wholly associated itself with the applicant's submission that the taxation off of item 2 was a fundamental error.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter for taxation is an error of principle justifying interference with a taxing officer's decision
- Where taxation occurs after judgment, the value adjudged by the court, not the pleadings, is the benchmark for instruction fees
- A getting-up fee is awardable even where the case was heard by way of affidavits rather than viva voce evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the taxing officer/deputy registrar Hon. Vincent Kiplagat delivered on 6th February, 2025 on the taxation of the 1st petitioner/applicant's bill of party and party costs dated 11th December, 2023 particularly item 1(a) on instructions fees and item 2 on getting up fees is set aside
- 2.The bill of party and party costs dated 11th December 2023 shall be taxed afresh by a different deputy registrar/taxing officer other than Honourable Vincent Kiplagat
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Igwe General Stores Limited & 2 others v Board of Trustees, National Social Security Fund & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E008 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 194 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber summons dated 5th March, 2025 (Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order) arising from Petition herein. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/194/eng@2026-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.