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 AllowedChamber Summons dated 12th May, 2025 (suit bill of costs dated 23rd October, 2023)· [2026] KEELC 654 (KLR)

Kiattu & another v Muhika & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 410 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 654 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (ELC)
12 February 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
1,766 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that once a property's value appears in evidence, taxing officers must use it to calculate legal fees rather than guess.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a chamber summons dated 12th May, 2025 brought by the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, seeking review and setting aside of the taxing master's ruling of 29th April, 2025 on items 1(a), 1(b) and 2 of their party/party bill of costs dated 23rd October, 2023. The applicants complained that the taxing master, Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, ignored directions given by Oguttu Mboya J in a ruling of 9th October, 2024, erred in holding the value of the subject matter undetermined, awarded paltry instruction fees of Kshs.250,000 under each of items 1(a) and 1(b) and getting-up fees of Kshs.83,333.33 under item 2, and disregarded valuation reports showing the suit property's value at Kshs.35,000,000 and Kshs.40,000,000 respectively. The plaintiffs/respondents opposed, urging that the suit was a simple land dispute raising no novel point of law and that the taxed sums should stand. The court framed one issue: whether the taxing officer fell into error. Applying Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, the court held that the valuation reports produced at trial disclosed the value of the subject matter, so the taxing officer erred in exercising discretion instead of taxing on the disclosed value. The application was allowed: the 29th April, 2025 ruling was set aside in respect of items 1(a), 1(b) and 2, the bill was referred for re-taxation before another taxing officer other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat and Hon. T. Marienga, and the court made no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing officer erred in holding that the value of the subject matter was undetermined and thereby exercising discretion

Holding

He did err: valuation reports had been produced in evidence in the suit, so the value was disclosed and the taxing officer was bound to tax on it rather than exercise discretion

Reasoning

The court noted that paragraphs 18 to 21 of the judgment of 31st October, 2022 showed the plaintiff's valuation report was produced without objection, and paragraph 48 showed the defendants produced documents D1 to D30 as exhibits. The value of the suit property was therefore disclosed through the valuation reports. The taxing officer's finding that the value was undetermined was an error of principle warranting interference.

p. 4
02

Circumstances in which the court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision

Holding

Interference is warranted where the taxing officer misdirected himself on a matter of principle or where the quantum is manifestly extravagant, per Premchand Raichand

Reasoning

The court adopted the principles from Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd: instruction fee should cover the advocate's work; each bill is taxed on its merits; value of subject matter must be considered; discretion must be exercised judicially; public interest in access to courts; and no reference succeeds unless those principles are breached or the quantum is manifestly extravagant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the value of the subject matter has been disclosed from pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing officer must tax the bill on that value and may not fall back on discretion
  • Value of subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; only if not ascertainable may the taxing officer exercise discretion (Joreth Ltd principle)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ruling of the taxing master (Hon. Mr. Vincent Kiplagat) delivered on 29th April, 2025 in respect to items no. 1(a), 1(b) and 2 of the 1st and 2nd defendants party/party bill of costs dated 23rd October, 2023 is set aside
  2. 2.The matter is referred back to another taxing officer other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat and Hon. T. Marienga for taxation of items 1(a), 1(b) and 2 of the party and party bill of costs dated 23rd October, 2023
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(2); Schedule VIA paragraph I(n); Schedule 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd Another -vs- Quarry services of East Africa Ltd and Another No. 3
    (1972) EA 162
  • Joreth Ltd vs Kigano & Associates
    [2002] 1 E.A. 92
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiattu & another v Muhika & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 410 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 654 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 12th May, 2025 (suit bill of costs dated 23rd October, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/654/eng@2026-02-12

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