Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E070 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a lawyer's taxed fees bill because the High Court taxing officer had no power to tax costs from Court of Appeal matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court taxing officer had jurisdiction to tax an advocate-client bill of costs arising from Court of Appeal proceedings
The taxing officer of the High Court had no authority to assess the bill; the proper taxing officer is the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, and taxing without jurisdiction was an error in principle
The bill related to instructions in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2019. Rule 111 of the repealed Court of Appeal Rules (2010), as applied to those proceedings, vests taxation of costs arising out of applications or appeals to the Court of Appeal in the Registrar, who holds custody of the appellate record. Rule 116 of the 2022 Rules continues this position. Taxation by the High Court deputy registrar therefore lacked legal basis and constituted an error in principle justifying interference on the reference.
The standard for interference with a taxing officer's decision on a reference
A judge will not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by a taxing officer unless the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing the costs; questions solely of quantum are for the taxing officer save in exceptional cases
Relying on Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board and Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, the court restated the settled principle that interference on a reference is warranted only for errors of principle. Here, the taxing officer's lack of jurisdiction was itself an error of principle, so the taxed amount was unjust and without legal basis.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with the discretion of a taxing officer unless it is shown that there was an error in principle in assessing the costs
- Costs arising out of an application or appeal to the Court of Appeal are to be taxed by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, not a deputy registrar of the High Court
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and order of the taxing officer, Hon Judith Omollo (DR) delivered on 18th December, 2024 taxing the advocate/applicant's advocate-client bill of costs dated 31st May, 2023 at Kenya Shillings Eighty-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven and Forty Cents (Kshs.86,357.40/-) is hereby set aside
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
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 E070 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 20th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/418/eng@2026-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.