Kohlenberg Foundation v Langton Investments Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E285 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2197 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Kshs. 900,000 fee award, ruling that courts rarely interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless a clear error of principle is proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Honourable Taxing Officer erred in principle in the assessment of Instruction Fees
- 2.Who should bear costs of this application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees at Kshs. 900,000/= (out of a bill of Kshs. 5,127,160/=)
No error of principle was established. The Plaintiff's suit, which was struck out before hearing, sought only declaratory and injunctive relief with no monetary claim, so the value of the subject matter was unascertainable and the purchase price in the 1999 Agreement for Sale could not be used. The taxing master's discretion was judicially exercised.
The suit was struck out before hearing, so subject matter value had to come from the pleadings, judgment or settlement per Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates. The Plaint sought declaratory, injunctive and cancellation-of-title relief with no monetary claim; ownership was disputed with fraud allegations, so the alleged purchase price could not fix the value. The value being unascertainable, the taxing master properly exercised discretion, relying on Premchand Raichand v Quary Services and matter-specific factors, in awarding Kshs. 900,000/= instruction fees.
Competency of the reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The reference was competent; a Notice of Objection was filed about nine days after the ruling and specified the items objected to, so the court had jurisdiction.
Rule 11 requires objection within fourteen days and a chamber summons within fourteen days of receiving reasons. The Notice of Objection dated 3/7/2025 was filed about nine days after the ruling and specified the items objected to. Citing Twiga Motors Ltd v Hon. Dalmas Otieno Anyango, the court held that adherence to the Rule 11 time limits vests it with jurisdiction to determine the reference.
Legal principles established
#- Courts will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless it is shown that the taxing officer erred in principle or exercised discretion improperly, wrongly or on a wrong principle
- Where the value of the subject matter is unascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing master has discretion to award reasonable instruction fees
- A claim struck out at the preliminary stage does not render the amount pleaded in it the value of the subject matter for taxation purposes
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 25/7/2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference from the Taxing Officer)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Officer's decision made on 24/6/2025
The value of the suit property was unascertainable from the pleadings and the taxing master judicially exercised her discretion in assessing instruction fees at Kshs. 900,000/=
Remitting the Bill of Costs dated 21/2/2025 for re-taxation (or taxation afresh by the court)
No error of principle was demonstrated in the taxation
Costs
The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Based on the foregoing, the Chamber Summons application dated 25/7/2025 is unmerited and it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
It is therefore my finding that the value of the suit property was not ascertainable, and thus the taxing master judicially exercised her discretion in assessing the instruction fees at Kshs. 900,000/=.
When the value of the subject matter is unascertainable, the taxing master has discretion to award reasonable instruction fees.
It is well settled that courts will not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Taxing Officer unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the applicant as both Defendant and Appellant, stating: "I will proceed to determine whether the taxing oficer rightly exercised her discretion in determining the Appellant's instruction fees." although this is a reference, not an appeal.
Submissions dated 30/3/2026 are recorded as filed after the application of 25/7/2025 but before judgment on 17/4/2026; also the notice of objection dated 3/7/2025 is described as filed after the taxation ruling of 24/6/2025 while the affidavit describes a ruling of 18/11/2024 striking out the suit - chronology is consistent internally but the case number is not stated anywhere.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kohlenberg Foundation v Langton Investments Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E285 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2197 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2197/eng@2026-04-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.