Kinjunje Gardens Limited & another v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Environment and Land Case E353 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1567 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court cut a Kshs. 378 million legal fee assessment, ruling that non-money lawsuits like injunctions cannot be used to inflate lawyers' instruction fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in fixing the value of the subject matter at Kshs. 378,375,474.63 for instruction fees
Yes. The Plaintiffs sought only declaratory and injunctive reliefs which are not assignable a monetary value; the disputed loan balance could not determine the value of the subject matter. The Taxing Master failed to apply Schedule 6 under the category of 'other matters'.
The suit was withdrawn before hearing, so subject matter value could only be ascertained from the pleadings. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and the Joreth Ltd principle, the Plaint sought no monetary relief - only declarations on the lawfulness of the charge and statutory power of sale, plus an injunction. The loan balance was disputed, hence the suit, and could not be used as the value. The Taxing Master therefore erred in principle and misapplied Schedule 6.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in allowing Item No. 10 (drawing and copying of the Replying Affidavit)
No. The item is provided for under Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the Taxing Master perused the record; there was no basis for interference.
The Court held that if the Defendant proved the document had the alleged folios by producing the bundle, it was entitled to the statutory rate for copies necessarily made. The Taxing Master having perused the record, the Court declined to interfere with that award. The application therefore succeeded only on Item No. 1.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless it is shown to be based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Where a suit is withdrawn before hearing, the value of the subject matter for taxation purposes can only be determined from the pleadings; declaratory and injunctive reliefs are not capable of being assigned a monetary value
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling on Taxation delivered on 21/10/2025 is set aside with respect to Item No. 1 only
- 2.The Defendant/Respondent's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 4/3/2025 is remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh taxation of Item No. 1 only before a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat
- 3.The Defendant/Respondent shall bear the costs of this Reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinjunje Gardens Limited & another v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Environment and Land Case E353 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1567 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons application dated 3/11/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1567/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.