Langat & another v Full Gospel Church of Kenya, Kitale District (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2815 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale dismissed a challenge to a Kshs. 22,200 costs award because the applicants had no receipts or proof to back their claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error in principle in the taxing master's assessment of instruction fees
No error in principle found; the figure of Kshs. 22,000 was based on the ascertainable value of the subject matter
The trial court based its assessment on the value of the subject matter demonstrated in the sale agreement and referred to in the plaint. Instruction fees are determined from the value of the subject matter as discerned from the pleadings, per Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates. The applicants admitted the value of the subject land, and no evidence showed the figure was inordinately low.
Proof of payment of filing fees for items 2, 3 and 4 and proof of service for items 5 and 6
Applicants produced no evidence of payment or stamped documents; taxing master properly relied on evidence before it
Documents uploaded on the case tracking system must bear stamps showing payment to be treated as duly filed. Service may be done through email, but the taxing master is guided by the evidence before it as proof of payment of court fees and of service of court processes. No affidavit of service or stamped documents were placed before the court.
Attendance costs under item 7
Only reasonable, justified and necessary attendances are allowable; no proceedings were attached to verify court attendance
Under the Advocates Remuneration Order only attendances that are reasonable, justified and necessary are allowable. The applicants did not attach proceedings to establish and verify court attendance on the dates claimed, so there was no basis to find the taxing master took into account irrelevant factors or omitted relevant ones.
Jurisdiction of the High Court on a reference
The jurisdiction is exercised only where taxation is fundamentally flawed
Citing Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, the court restated that a reference may only succeed where the taxing master erred in principle, and no such error was demonstrated on the evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing master is guided by the evidence before it as proof of payment of court fees and service of court processes; uploading documents on the case tracking system is not synonymous with payment of filing fees
- Disbursements must be shown separately at the bottom of the bill of costs and receipts or proof presented at taxation; allowance of disbursements without proof is an error of principle
- The High Court's jurisdiction on a reference can only be exercised where the taxation was fundamentally flawed
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Kitale CMC)
- Kitale CMC E&L No. E184 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference by a party aggrieved by a taxing master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat & another v Full Gospel Church of Kenya, Kitale District (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2815 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale CMC E&L No. E184 of 2025 (application dated 2/9/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2815/eng@2026-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.