Guchu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Guchu Churu (Deceased) v Kamande & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal 20 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2452 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a challenge to taxed legal fees, confirming courts only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where a clear error of principle is proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master erred in principle in assessing instruction fees without anchoring them on a value of the subject matter
No error: value was unsubstantiated (figures of Kshs 20,000,000 and Kshs 15,000,000 appeared without valuation material), so a discretionary assessment was proper
The value was variously stated in the pleadings and proceedings but no valuation report or documentary material substantiated the figures. The taxing master therefore rightly declined to anchor instruction fees on a specific value and resorted to a discretionary assessment guided by the Joreth Limited factors. The applicant's contention of misdirection could not be sustained.
Whether the award of getting up fees at one-third of the instruction fee was erroneous
Not erroneous; getting up fees ordinarily follow instruction fees as a proportion thereof
The taxing master awarded getting up fees at one-third of the instruction fee, consistent with the established principle that getting up fees follow instruction fees proportionally. Since the court upheld the taxation of instruction fees, it found no basis to interfere with the consequent award on getting up fees.
The scope of the Court's interference with a taxing officer's discretion under Rule 11
Interference only where discretion was improperly exercised or the award is so unreasonable as to betray an error in principle
Taxation is an exercise of discretion entrusted to the taxing officer, not subject to casual or routine interference. On a Rule 11 reference the court does not embark on fresh taxation; it intervenes with circumspection only where it is demonstrated that the discretion was not judicially exercised or that the award is so unreasonable as to betray an error in principle.
Legal principles established
#- A reference to a Judge under Rule 11 is not a re-taxation but a circumscribed jurisdiction to interrogate the taxation for error of principle
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from credible material, the taxing officer may make a discretionary assessment guided by the Joreth factors
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3rd April 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Guchu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Guchu Churu (Deceased) v Kamande & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal 20 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2452 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 3rd April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2452/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.