Ngoje & 7 others v National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E090 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3017 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court set aside a lawyer's fee taxation because the taxing officer couldn't explain how the figures were calculated, ordering a fresh taxation before a different officer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer committed errors of principle warranting setting aside of the taxation
Yes. The Taxing Officer failed to demonstrate how the instruction fee of Kshs. 200,000/= was derived, did not disclose the applicable basic instruction fee, taxed items 9 to 78 globally without addressing individual items or assigning reasons, and the final taxed sum of Kshs. 365,625/= was not clearly computed. These amounted to errors of principle.
The Court held that although the Taxing Officer recited the correct principles, including Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, he did not demonstrate how he arrived at the instruction fees or account for the value of the subject matter, the Kshs. 27,240,000/= monetary award, the constitutional and declaratory reliefs, and the 18-volume, 9,128-page Record of Appeal. Global taxation of numerous items without reasons and an unexplained computation further compounded the misdirection, warranting interference.
What remedy follows where a taxation is set aside for errors of principle
The Bill of Costs should be remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer rather than re-taxed by the Judge.
The Court considered re-taxing the Bill itself but, given the numerous contested items relating to photocopying, scanning, attendances, service and preparation of documents, and the need for a comprehensive reassessment, it concluded that the interests of justice were best served by remittal to a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge will not normally interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision on quantum unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle or the discretion was exercised improperly resulting in injustice.
- Failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter for purposes of taxation is an error of principle justifying interference.
- A Taxing Officer's discretion, though wide, must be exercised judiciously with reasons discernible from the ruling.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and taxation delivered on 11th September 2025 by Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, Deputy Registrar, in respect of the Appellants' Bill of Costs dated 5th April 2025 is set aside.
- 2.The Appellants' Bill of Costs dated 5th April 2025 is remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer other than Hon. Vincent Kiplagat.
- 3.The Applicants shall have the costs of this Reference.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 (reference against a Taxing Officer's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngoje & 7 others v National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E090 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3017 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA No. E090 of 2024 (Chamber Summons dated 23rd September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3017/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.