Ngewa & another v Kilonzo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2956 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court slashed a Kshs.120,000 legal fee to the Kshs.3,000 scale limit, showing advocates cannot inflate costs beyond the official Remuneration Order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether items 1 and 7 to 12 of the taxed bill of costs are excessive as to call for interference by the court
Key legal issues
#Whether items 1 and 7 to 12 of the taxed bill were excessive so as to justify the court's interference with the taxing officer's discretion
Item 1 (instruction fee of Kshs.120,000/=) was excessive against the scale fee of Kshs.3,000/= under Schedule 7 and was set aside; items 7 to 12 were at the proper scale and were upheld.
The court applied the First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shah & Others test that interference is warranted only on an error of principle or where fees are manifestly excessive. Since the taxation arose from an interlocutory application while the main suit remained pending, Schedule 7 Rule 5 capped the application fee at Kshs.3,000/=. The Kshs.120,000/= awarded was therefore manifestly excessive, whereas items 7 to 12 at Kshs.1,400/= matched the scale.
Legal principles established
#- A court can only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of an error of principle
- Where instruction fees awarded exceed the scale fee under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014, the award is excessive and will be set aside
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the instruction fees awarded on item number one (1)
- 2.Refer the matter back for fresh taxation by a taxing officer other than Hon. S. Jalang'o in strict compliance with Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order of 2014
- 3.Applicants to have costs of the reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a taxing officer's decision under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, pursuant to leave granted by the court on 31st July, 2025
Relief refused
#Setting aside items 7 to 12
Items 7 to 12, being attendance fees before the magistrate, were assessed at the scale provided for (Kshs.1,400/=) and thus not excessive
Costs
The Applicants shall have costs of this reference.
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.
I therefore set aside instruction fees on item number one (1). I refer this matter back for fresh taxation by a taxing oficer other than Hon. S. Jalang'o in strict compliance with the Schedule 7 of the Advocate's (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order of 2014.
The Applicants shall have costs of this reference.
The court cannot interfere with the taxing oficer's decision unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngewa & another v Kilonzo & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2956 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 11th August, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2956/eng@2026-05-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.