Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Makarios Andreas Tillyrides & another
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to disturb a Ksh.1,073,150 taxed legal fee, confirming courts rarely interfere with a taxing officer's decision without an error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing the advocate-client bill at Ksh.1,073,150
No error of principle was established; the taxing master properly exercised discretion since there was no market valuation of the suit property and the applicant did not conduct the matter to conclusion
The court applied the principle that interference with a taxing officer's award is only warranted on an error of principle or where the award is so excessive or so low as to amount to injustice. Since no current market valuation of the suit property existed and the applicant only filed a notice of change of advocates and attended two mentions before withdrawing, the taxing master's discretionary assessment of instruction fees could not be disturbed.
Whether the applicant was entitled to instruction fees despite withdrawing from the brief
The act of instructing the applicant formed an advocate-client relationship entitling the firm to instruction fees, but quantum was a matter for the taxing master's discretion
The court found it undisputed that the applicant filed the notice of change of advocates and entered appearance, so an advocate-client relationship existed. However, entitlement to fees did not entitle the applicant to the higher fee sought; the taxing officer's assessment stood absent an error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- A court will interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to an injustice
- The value of the subject matter for taxation purposes is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion to assess a just instruction fee
Court orders
#- 1.Both chamber summons dated 25th March, 2025 and 22nd July, 2025 dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Act, Paragraphs 11 & 12 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Makarios Andreas Tillyrides & another", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/831/eng@2026-02-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.