Kobilo Farm Limited & another v Elfam Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 24 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2944 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court ruled that money held in a joint advocates' account stays put until a land dispute is fully settled, and a heavily-cut legal fees bill must be taxed afresh.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Release of the balance of funds held in the joint advocates' account
The plaintiffs' application for release of the balance was dismissed; the deposit order of 23rd September 2020 was made to protect the interests of both parties and was not time bound, and it remains active until the matter, including costs, is fully determined
The court re-read its order of 23rd September 2020. While the status quo order was expressly limited to pending hearing and determination, the deposit order was made 'to secure the interest of both parties' without a timeline. Costs of the suit are yet to be settled and the plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal against the whole judgment, which they did not deny. The authorities cited by the plaintiffs (Fredrick Mageria Githinji and MS Sharrifi) were distinguished: one dealt with deposits as security for conditional stay, the other with a deposit order that carried a 21-day timeline. Accordingly the funds must remain in the joint account.
Whether the reference out of time was properly before the court
The reference, filed about two months after the ruling of 5th December 2025, was deemed filed in time despite no formal prayer for extension of time
Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order prescribes 14 days for objection and 14 days from receipt of reasons to file a reference, but the taxing master never supplied reasons despite the defendant's letter of 10th December 2025. Rule 11(4) confers a discretion to enlarge time with no prescribed conditions. The court held a party who waits for the taxing officer's formal response cannot be faulted, that a two-month delay was not inordinate, and exercised its inherent power to deem the reference duly filed on time even absent an express extension prayer.
Whether the taxing master failed to give reasons for her ruling
Yes; the taxing master's failure to explain why she based instruction fees on the value of only one property was an error in principle, and the bill was remitted for fresh taxation before a different taxing master
The ruling did not indicate why the taxing master relied on the value of one property when the defendant contended the subject matter was two properties valued at KShs. 205,000,000 per the judgment. A bill drawn at KShs. 20,000,000 was taxed at about KShs. 3,000,000 - a monumental reduction requiring explanation. Following Evans Thiga Gaturu, Nyamogo & Nyamogo and Muriu Mungai, reasons are essential for a judge to assess whether the discretion was judicially exercised. As the taxing master had been transferred and could not be compelled to give reasons without wasting judicial time, remittal to another taxing master was the just course.
Costs of the two applications
No order as to costs, the plaintiffs having failed on their application and the defendant having only partially succeeded on its own
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event and are in the court's discretion, with a proviso permitting departure on sufficient grounds. Given the split outcome - the plaintiffs' application dismissed and the defendant's application only partially successful - the court declined to award costs on either application and made no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with the taxing officer's exercise of discretion unless there is an error of principle; quantum is for the taxing officer save in exceptional cases
- A deposit made into a joint advocates' account pursuant to a court order to secure the interests of both parties remains held until the matter is fully determined, where the order was not time bound
- Where a taxing master's decision rests on a material choice (such as the value of the subject matter) without reasons on the face of the ruling, the failure to supply reasons on objection amounts to an error in principle warranting interference
- Where the taxing master has failed to respond to a notice of objection and has been transferred, a delay of about two months in filing the reference is not inordinate and the court may deem the reference filed in time
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18th November, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The application dated 3rd February, 2026 succeeds to the extent that the Defendant's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 21st March, 2024 is remitted back for fresh taxation by a different taxing master
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly cited in the judgment; the court sits as the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret under its inherent and supervisory powers over its taxing officer and for enforcement of its own decrees
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kobilo Farm Limited & another v Elfam Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 24 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2944 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2944/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.