Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3450 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld the Kshs 2.8 million taxed legal fees owed by Narok County Government to its lawyers, ruling there was no error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether instruction fees of Kshs. 1,500,000 were excessive where the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable
No error of principle was established; the Taxing Officer identified and considered relevant factors (nature of the appeal, duration of representation, work involved, interests of the parties) and the award was not manifestly excessive
Applying Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, where the value of the subject matter cannot be determined from the pleadings, the taxing officer may exercise discretion based on the nature and importance of the matter, the interests of the parties and the conduct of proceedings. The Taxing Officer expressly considered the nature of the appeal, the roughly four years of representation, the work involved and the parties' interests. The court found the reasoning was not merely generalized and no irrelevant considerations were taken into account.
Whether items on service and attendances exceeded statutory limits under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Taxing Officer acted within the permissible scale; the Kshs. 1,400 service fee cap applies only within a limited radius and Schedule 6A(7) allows attendance charges up to Kshs. 15,000
Schedule 6(9) provides that the prescribed service fee applies only within a limited radius, with additional charges permissible depending on distance; here services involved travel between Nairobi and Narok. Schedule 6A(7) permits attendance charges up to Kshs. 15,000 depending on the nature of attendance. The court found no misapplication of the law and noted that mere dissatisfaction with quantum is not a ground for interference, citing Lucy Waithera & 2 Others v Edwin Njagi.
Whether the 50% increase on the taxed Advocate–Client costs was lawful in the absence of prior taxation of Party-and-Party costs
The increase was lawful; Part B of Schedule 6 mandates a 50% increase on Advocate–Client Bills and prior Party-and-Party taxation is not a prerequisite. Further, the issue was raised for the first time on reference and could not be introduced then
The court adopted the line of authority in Kinyua Muyaa, National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo and Dennis K.N. Magare, holding that the proper approach is to tax the Advocate–Client Bill and thereafter increase it by 50%, rejecting the contrary view that Party-and-Party costs must first be determined. It also held, on the authority of Ahmednasir Abdikadir and Showcase Property, that a party cannot raise before the court on reference an issue never canvassed before the taxing officer.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer's decision is discretionary and a judge will only interfere where there is an error of principle or the award is manifestly excessive or low
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion based on the nature and importance of the matter, interests of the parties, conduct of proceedings and other relevant circumstances
- The 50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6 applies to Advocate–Client Bills of Costs and is not dependent on prior taxation of Party-and-Party costs
- Issues not raised before the taxing officer cannot be introduced for the first time at the reference stage
- Dissatisfaction with the quantum of taxation alone is not a ground for interference
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 12th May, 2025 is hereby dismissed
- 2.The taxation ruling delivered on 24th April, 2025 is hereby upheld
- 3.The Client/Applicant shall bear the costs of the Reference
- 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 E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3450 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 12th May, 2025 (Taxation Reference under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3450/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.