PC Onduso & Company Advocates v Oldonyo Nyoike Group Ranch (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3455 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya

28 May 2026

JOJudy Omange

565 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

The High Court in Kajiado refused to overturn a taxing master's decision cutting a legal fee bill from over Kshs 100 million to about Kshs 6 million.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This was a reference by the applicant, Paul Chapla Onduso, acting through the firm of M/s Ashiruma & Co. Advocates, challenging a ruling delivered on 5th March 2025 by the taxing master, who taxed an advocate-client bill of costs dated 10th August 2024 at Kshs 6,122,625. The applicant complained that the taxing master erred in taxing off Kshs 62,000,000 from item 1, Kshs 20,666,667 in item 2 (including getting-up fees of Kshs 3,000,000), Kshs 20,679,037 in page 2, and Kshs 6,380 in page 3. No submissions had been filed by either party by the time of the ruling. The court framed a sole issue: whether the taxing officer exercised her discretion judiciously and whether the applicant established a basis for interference. Adopting the principles in Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W'njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, the court held that interference is warranted only where an award is so low or high as to amount to an injustice, or where the decision rests on an error of principle, inferred from a failure to consider relevant factors or consideration of irrelevant ones. Noting that the taxing master outlined the applicable schedule, applied the Joreth v Kigano & Associates principles, and gave clear reasons for each impugned item — taking into account the limited complexity of the suit, the few documents, the years the matter was in court and the interests of the parties — the judge found the discretion was exercised judicially. The reference was dismissed with no orders as to costs, as it was not defended.

Key legal issues

Whether the taxing officer exercised her discretion judiciously in taxing off Kshs 62,000,000 and other amounts from the advocate-client bill of costs

Holding

The reference was not merited; the taxing master gave clear reasons for each impugned item and the court could not fault her exercise of discretion.

Reasoning

The court restated the settled principles governing references from a taxing master: interference is warranted only where the award is so low or high as to amount to an injustice or where the decision rests on an error of principle, inferred from failure to consider relevant factors or consideration of irrelevant ones. The taxing master outlined the applicable schedule, applied the Joreth v Kigano principles, considered the complexity of the suit, the paucity of documents, the duration of the litigation and the interests of the parties, and gave reasons for each impugned item.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A court should only interfere with a taxing master's decision if the award is too low or too high as to amount to an injustice, or where the decision was based on an error of principle
A discretionary power must be exercised judicially and demonstrated by clear reasons for its exercise

Court orders

1.The reference is dismissed
2.No orders as to costs since the reference was not defended

Authorities

Legislation

Advocates (Remuneration) OrderNot specified (factors relevant to taxation)

Cases cited (2)

Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W'njuguna & 6 Others
[2006] eKLR
Joreth versus Kigano & Associates
(2002) eKLR

On appeal from: Taxing Master (ruling of 5th March 2025 on the advocate-client bill of costs dated 10th August 2024); Advocate-client bill of costs dated 10th August 2024
Jurisdiction invoked: Reference against a taxing master's decision under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "PC Onduso & Company Advocates v Oldonyo Nyoike Group Ranch (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3455/eng@2026-05-28

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