Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedAppeal from Mavoko MCCC MISC. No. E071 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 291 (KLR)

Omollo & 2 others v Ayieko Kangethe & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 291 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 January 2026
NMN.A. Matheka
1,298 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled magistrates cannot tax advocate-client legal fee bills, voiding a Kshs 374,832 award and property seizure warrants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellants, Oscar Omollo, Beatrice Magu and Judith Saina, appealed to the Environment and Land Court at Machakos against a Ruling on Taxation and Certificate of Costs issued by Hon. Derrick K. Kuto, Senior Principal Magistrate, at Mavoko on 30th January 2025, in which Kshs 374,832.50 was awarded to Ayieko Kangethe Advocates as advocate-client costs, followed by warrants of attachment. The Appellants raised four grounds, principal among them that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to tax an advocate-client bill of costs. The court, on first appeal, applied the settled principle that jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation. Paragraph 10 of the Advocates Act vests taxation in the Registrar or other specified High Court officers, and there was no evidence that Hon. Kuto held any such office; his taxation was therefore without jurisdiction and irregular. Part III of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides no mechanism for a Magistrate's Court to tax advocate-client bills; only party and party costs may be assessed by the court that heard the dispute, by written request under Order 21 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Ruling, Orders, Certificate of Costs and all consequential orders, and declared the warrants of attachment unprocedural, unlawful and illegal, while leaving the Advocate free to file his bill before a court of competent jurisdiction subject to limitation. There were no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court to tax an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs

Holding

The Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction; paragraph 10 of the Advocates Act vests taxation in the Registrar or specified officers of the High Court, and there was no evidence Hon. Kuto held such office

Reasoning

Paragraph 10 of the Advocates Act designates the Registrar, District or Deputy Registrar of the High Court, or another officer appointed by the Chief Justice, as the Taxing Officer. Nothing in Part III of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides a mechanism for a Magistrate's Court to tax an advocate-client bill. Since no evidence showed Hon. Kuto was a Registrar within the meaning of paragraph 10, his taxation was without jurisdiction and irregular. Party and party costs may be assessed by the court that heard the dispute, but not advocate-client bills.

p. 3
02

Correct procedure for costs in the Subordinate Court

Holding

Costs in the Subordinate Court are assessed, not taxed, under Order 21 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules, upon a written request, statement of costs and supporting documents

Reasoning

Order 21 Rule 9A requires a party claiming costs in a Magistrate's Court to file a written request, statement of costs and supporting documents served with a breakdown. The court in Munzala confirmed that no bills of costs are expected to be filed in Subordinate Courts; party and party costs are assessed by letter, not taxed. A perusal of the advocate-client bill of costs revealed no supporting documents were filed, confirming the irregularity of the taxation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to tax a Bill of Costs in a dispute between an advocate and their client
  • Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be conferred by parties or assumed by the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Ruling, Orders, Certificate of Costs and all consequential orders arising from the Ruling on Taxation and Certificate of Costs issued by Hon. Derrick K. Kuto at Mavoko Magistrate's Court on 30th January, 2025 in Mavoko MCCC MISC No. E071 of 2024 be set aside
  2. 2.That the warrants of attachment issued against the Certificate of Costs issued by Hon. Derrick K. Kuto at Mavoko Magistrate's Court on 30th January, 2025 be declared unprocedural, unlawful and illegal
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActParagraph 10
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderSchedule 7; Schedule 4; Part III
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 9A

Cases cited (3)

  • Mbogo and another vs Shah
    (1968) EA 93
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Munzala & another vs Emily Kadenyi t/a Emily & Associates Advocates
    (2023) KEELC 21519 (KLR)
On appeal from
Mavoko Magistrate's Court
Mavoko MCCC MISC. No. E071 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the Magistrate's Court under the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omollo & 2 others v Ayieko Kangethe & Co. Advocates (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from Mavoko MCCC MISC. No. E071 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/291/eng@2026-01-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.