Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedChamber Summons dated 23rd September 2025 (not otherwise numbered in the judgment)· [2026] KEELC 3280 (KLR)

Mongare & 14 others v Calleb t/a M. Ananda & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3280 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 May 2026
JOJ.O. Olola
2,056 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled each housing unit buyer owed separate legal fees, but the Kshs 65,000 they already paid must be deducted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Chamber Summons dated 23rd September 2025, Lilian Akinyi Olesi Mong'are and 14 others sought to set aside a Taxing Officer's Ruling delivered on 10th September 2025 in respect of items 1 (instruction fee), 103 (adding half) and 105 (get up fee) of a consolidated Bill of Costs, and to have the fees re-assessed. They argued that they had jointly instructed the Respondent advocate and that instruction fees should have been based on the consolidated value of the properties (Kshs 30,800,000), and that the Taxing Officer erred in making deduction of Kshs 65,000 already paid by each of them subject to proof of payment. The Respondent advocate opposed, averring that he was instructed separately on different dates, that the suits concerned different transactions and housing units and were only consolidated on 6th April 2016, and that the taxation was proper. Applying Rule 16 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the settled principle that a judge interferes with a Taxing Officer's discretion only on an error of principle, the court held that the suits were filed separately, concerned different housing units, and that the Applicants themselves paid instructions fees individually, so the Taxing Officer was not in error in taxing instruction fees separately. However, the court found that the Respondent had admitted receipt of Kshs 65,000 from each Applicant, making the proof-of-payment qualification unnecessary. The application partly succeeded: the court directed that the uncontested Kshs 65,000 be deducted from the final taxed bills, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. Judgment delivered at Mombasa on 26th May 2026 by J.O. Olola, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether separate or consolidated instruction fees were payable

Holding

Separate instruction fees were properly chargeable; the Applicants gave and paid for instructions individually and the suits, though consolidated, concerned different housing units

Reasoning

The court found the suits were filed separately in 2015 and only consolidated on 6th April 2016. Each suit related to a different housing unit with its own sub-lease value. The Applicants' own conduct - each paying Kshs 65,000 on giving instructions - showed their dealings with the advocate were separate and distinct, so the Taxing Officer could not be faulted for not using the consolidated value of Kshs 30,800,000.

p. 3
02

Whether deduction of Kshs 65,000 per Applicant should have been subject to proof of payment

Holding

The qualification was unnecessary because the Respondent advocate had admitted receipt; the amounts must be deducted from the taxed bill

Reasoning

The Respondent advocate, in his Reply sworn on 22nd July 2025, acknowledged that each Respondent paid Kshs 65,000 and that no further amount was paid. Since the payment was admitted and not disputed, the Taxing Officer ought to have treated it as uncontested and deducted it outright rather than making deduction subject to proof of payment.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A judge on a reference from taxation will not interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle; questions solely of quantum are for the Taxing Officer
  • It is an error of principle to take into account irrelevant factors or omit relevant factors; the normal practice where such an error appears is to remit for reassessment
  • Where an admitted payment has already been made by the client, it must be taken into account in assessing the costs due without requiring further proof

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 22nd September 2025 succeeds partially
  2. 2.The uncontested amount of Kshs 65,000/= be deducted from the final bills as taxed by the Taxing Officer
  3. 3.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration Order 2009Rule 16
  • Advocate's Remuneration Order 2024Schedule 6

Cases cited (4)

  • Kipkorir, Titoo and Kiara Advocates –vs- Deposit Protection Fund Board
    Nbi C.A. Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2004 (2005) eKLR
  • Arthur –vs- Nyeri Electricity Undertaking
    (1961) EA 497
  • Nyangito & Co. Advocates -vs- Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd
    (2014) eKLR
  • Peter Muthoka & Another –Vs- Ochieng and 3 others
    NRB Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2017 (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling under the Advocates Remuneration Order (Rule 16 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mongare & 14 others v Calleb t/a M. Ananda & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 23rd September 2025 (not otherwise numbered in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3280/eng@2026-05-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.