Kirima (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Gerishon Kamau Kirima (Deceased)) v Corner Place Investment Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 45 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1975 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a Kshs.1.5 million legal costs award, confirming a challenging a Taxing Master's decision requires proving a clear error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the award of instruction fees of Kshs.1,000,000 constituted an error of principle
No error; the instruction fees were properly based on the value of the suit property (Kshs.70,000,000) discernible from the pleadings
The court applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 and the principles in Peter Muthoka v Ochieng and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates: the value of the subject matter must be drawn from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. A valuation report valuing the suit property at Kshs.70,000,000 was annexed to the supporting affidavit to the Petition, so the Taxing Master had a proper basis for the award and discretion was correctly exercised.
Whether getting-up fees of Kshs.333,333 were properly awarded without certification by the trial court
Properly awarded; a denial of liability suffices under Schedule 6A and the fees were one-third of the instruction fee
The court held that Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6A requires only a denial of liability for getting-up fees to be payable; certification that a matter is proper for getting-up fees is not a prerequisite. The Petition was defended, and the Taxing Master calculated getting-up fees at one-third of the instruction fee as the Schedule prescribes, so no error in principle arose.
Whether the Taxing Master should have apportioned costs among the jointly and severally liable Respondents
Apportionment is not a matter for taxation; it arises at calculation of the decretal sum, and a decree holder may execute in full against any one judgment debtor
Relying on the explanation of joint and several liability in Hellen Njenga v Wachira Murage (cited in Dubai Electronics v Total Kenya), the court held that the decree holder may recover the full sum from any one tortfeasor, who may later seek reimbursement from co-defendants. Apportionment is therefore not a taxation issue and could not be entertained in the Reference.
Legal principles established
#- A court can only interfere with a Taxing Master's decision where an error in principle is demonstrated
- Getting-up fees become payable where a denial of liability is filed and shall not be less than one-third of the instruction fee
- Under joint and several liability, the decree holder may recover the full decretal sum from any one judgment debtor, who may then seek reimbursement from co-debtors
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2025 seeking to set aside the Taxing Master's decision is dismissed
- 2.The Reference is dismissed with costs to the Petitioner
- 3.The Taxing Master's award of instruction fees of Kshs.1,000,000 and getting-up fees of Kshs.333,333 is upheld
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from the decision of the Taxing Master under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 (inherent/review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over taxation references)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirima (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Gerishon Kamau Kirima (Deceased)) v Corner Place Investment Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 45 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1975 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1975/eng@2026-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.