Ngonze & Ngonze Advocates v Nakumatt Holdings Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2858 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court boosted a law firm's fees from Kshs 700,000 to nearly Kshs 9.75 million, ruling the fee assessor ignored the real value of the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle by holding that the value of the subject matter was not determinable
Yes - the Plaint expressly pleaded liquidated sums exceeding Kshs. 421,964,585, which were specific and quantifiable, and the failure to consider them was a misdirection in principle
The court found the Plaint contained express liquidated claims for fixtures, stock, staff release costs and lost income cumulatively exceeding Kshs. 421 million. Although no judgment had been entered, under Joreth and Peter Muthoka the value of the subject matter before judgment is ascertained from the pleadings. The Taxing Master's holding that the value was 'indeterminable' disregarded these pleaded liquidated sums, amounting to an error of principle warranting interference.
Whether the instruction fees awarded (Kshs. 700,000) were manifestly low
Yes - applying Schedule 6 to the pleaded value of Kshs. 421,964,585, instruction fees should have been Kshs. 6,529,468.77; the award of Kshs. 700,000 was manifestly low
The court applied Para 1(b)(ii) of Schedule 6 of the 2014 Advocates Remuneration Order: Kshs. 120,000 for the first million, 2% on the next Kshs. 19 million, and 1.5% on the balance of Kshs. 401,964,585, yielding Kshs. 6,529,468.77. It further held that Schedule VI Part B mandatorily requires advocate-client fees to be increased by one-half, making the computation arithmetic rather than discretionary, and that the Taxing Master's award ignored this statutory requirement.
The proper remedy upon establishing an error of principle
The ruling was set aside in its entirety and the Bill remitted for re-taxation before a different Taxing Master with directions on the correct statutory computation
Applying the established practice that where a judge on reference finds an error of principle the general course is to remit the question of quantum, the court set aside the entire ruling and remitted the Bill to a different Taxing Master, directing the new Taxing Master to apply the correct statutory formula under Schedule 6 and the amounts the court had computed for instruction fees, getting-up fees and VAT.
Whether insolvency/administration of the client defeats the advocate's entitlement to costs on a successful reference
No - administration does not extinguish the advocate's right to fair remuneration or costs where the reference succeeds
The Respondent argued, citing Re Ukwala Supermarket Limited, that sanctioning the claim would prejudice creditors of a company under administration. The court held that while the Respondent is under administration, insolvency does not extinguish the advocate's right to fair remuneration or the entitlement to costs where the reference succeeds, and awarded costs of the reference to the Advocate/Applicant.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Master's discretion unless an error of principle is demonstrated or the award is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to an injustice
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; failure to ascertain or correctly ascribe it is an error of principle
- Where the suit has not proceeded to judgment, the pleadings form the basis for determining the subject matter value for instruction fees
- Under Schedule VI Part B of the Advocates Remuneration Order, advocate-client instruction fees must be increased by one-half as a matter of arithmetic, not discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the Taxing Master, Hon. R.K. Ogolla, delivered on 11th June, 2025 in respect of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 10th June, 2024 set aside in its entirety
- 2.The Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 10th June 2024 remitted for re-taxation before a different Taxing Master other than Hon. R.K. Ogolla, DR
- 3.The new Taxing Master to assess the Bill on its merits with regard to instruction fees based on the pleaded value of Kshs. 421,964,585.00, computed to yield instruction fees of Kshs. 6,529,468.77
- 4.Getting-up fees at one-third of instruction fees, amounting to Kshs. 2,176,489.59
- 5.VAT at 16% of instruction fees, amounting to Kshs. 1,044,715.00
- 6.Total sum due under the corrected computation stated as Kshs. 9,750,673.36, subject to further adjustments on other items of the Bill
- 7.Costs of the Reference awarded to the Advocate/Applicant, to be borne by the Client/Respondent
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master (Deputy Registrar), Environment and Land Court, Kwale
- Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 10th June, 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngonze & Ngonze Advocates v Nakumatt Holdings Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2858 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Application dated 24th June, 2025 (Reference from Taxing Master's Ruling of 11th June 2025, Kwale ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2858/eng@2026-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.