Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3476 (KLR)

Paragraph 11(1) and (2) requires a dissatisfied party to request reasons before filing a Reference. The Applicant requested reasons on 30th April 2025; the Taxing Officer did not supply them. Where reasons are not supplied, courts have held that the ruling itself is sufficient basis for filing a Reference, and procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice.

Following Mukisa Biscuit, a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed facts. Here, determining timeliness requires factual inquiry into when, or whether, reasons were supplied, taking it outside the Mukisa Biscuit definition. Further, failure to furnish reasons cannot defeat a diligent litigant's reference.

Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer must exercise discretion guided by relevant factors such as complexity, responsibility, time and importance. The Taxing Officer considered the complexity of the land dispute, the roughly four-year duration of litigation, and multiple interlocutory applications, consistent with Joreth and Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara.

Relying on Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries and Kinyua Muyaa v Kenya Ports Authority, the court held that Advocate–Client costs are properly enhanced by 50% once taxation is done under Schedule VI, and the uplift is not dependent on prior taxation of party-and-party costs. The Applicant's contrary contention failed.

The Applicant alleged lack of proof for disbursements and misapplication of Schedule VI, but such issues were said not to have been raised before the Taxing Officer. A taxing officer is best placed to assess reasonableness of items unless clearly shown to be excessive or unsupported; the Applicant placed no sufficient evidence before the Court.