Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs. 14.5 million legal fee award against Narok County Government, finding no error in how the bill was taxed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interference with taxing officer's discretion
The Client/Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of principle; the instruction fees of Kshs. 8,000,000/= though high were justified by the nature, complexity and duration of the constitutional land matter.
The court applied the settled test from Premchand Raichand and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates. The Taxing Officer had considered the nature of the dispute, the roughly five-year duration, volume of documentation and public interest, which are relevant considerations under Schedule 6. Mere dissatisfaction with quantum is insufficient to justify interference.
Lawfulness of the 50% increase on the Advocate–Client Bill
The 50% increase was lawful; the court found the line of authorities holding that Schedule 6(B) applies directly to Advocate–Client bills more persuasive, as it accords with the plain wording of the Remuneration Order.
Two conflicting lines of authority were cited. The court preferred Kinyua Muyaa, National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo and Dennis K.N. Magare, holding that Advocate–Client costs are derived by applying Schedule 6(A) then increasing by 50% under Schedule 6(B), without prior taxation of Party-and-Party costs. Additionally, the point was not raised before the Taxing Officer and could not be introduced at the Reference stage.
Taxation of service and attendance items
The impugned items were taxed within the Taxing Officer's discretion; enhanced service charges were justified by travel between Nairobi and Narok, and attendance fees within Schedule 6A limits.
Under Schedule 6, service fees are capped within a limited radius but allow additional reasonable charges depending on distance; attendances under Schedule 6A permit charges up to Kshs. 15,000/=. The Applicant did not demonstrate with specificity how the items violated the scale, and mere dissatisfaction is insufficient.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless the officer acted on a wrong principle, failed to consider relevant factors, considered irrelevant factors, or the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
- The 50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6 applies to Advocate–Client Bills of Costs by applying Schedule 6(A) and increasing the result by 50%, without first taxing Party-and-Party costs.
- A Reference cannot introduce new issues not canvassed before the taxing officer.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons Application dated 15th May 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, as assessed on 9th May 2025, is upheld
- 3.Costs of the Reference awarded to the Advocate/Respondent
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master (Hon. Daniel Ngayo)
- Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Application dated 15th May 2025 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3449/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.