Kihiu & 3 others v Muugano Wa Wanavijji /Akiba Mashinani Trust (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1112 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 880 (KLR)

The Plaint expressly pleaded that the suit properties were purchased at Kshs 81,000,000 and valued at Kshs 900,000,000 at filing; the purchase price was admitted by the Defendant and acknowledged in the judgment. The value was therefore ascertainable from the pleadings and record. The taxing officer was obliged to determine which pleaded figure formed the basis of instruction fees; instead he treated the value as incapable of ascertainment and assessed fees discretionally, an error of principle that justified interference on the reference.

Although the Plaint pleaded a value of Kshs 900,000,000, that figure was unsupported by any valuation or computation. The purchase price of Kshs 81,000,000 was expressly admitted by the Defendant and acknowledged by the trial court in its judgment, making it the reliable ascertainable value. Applying Schedule 6 rates to Kshs 81,000,000 yields instruction fees of Kshs 1,415,000 and a getting-up fee of one-third thereof, Kshs 471,666.67.

Drawing on Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol and the Supreme Court's decision in Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Board v EG & 5 others, the court restated that questions of quantum of costs are for the taxing officer, who has more experience, and that judicial interference is confined to errors of principle or manifest excess or deficiency causing injustice. That threshold was met here because the taxing officer disregarded the statutorily mandated starting point.