Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3478 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Narok County lost its bid to cut an advocate's KES 14.3M legal bill because disagreeing with the amount is not enough to overturn a taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interference with the Taxing Officer's discretion on instruction fees
No error of principle was shown; the instruction fees of Ksh 8,000,000/= were properly assessed given complexity, duration and importance
The Court noted the underlying petition involved constitutional and environmental claims over Mara Naboisho Conservancy spanning about four years, with multiple parties and complex land and licensing issues. The Taxing Officer considered duration, complexity, labour and importance. Applying Joreth, Kyalo Mbobu, Jeremiah Muku and Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission, the Court held taxation is an evaluative, not mathematical, exercise and found no misdirection.
Service fees and attendances under Schedules 6 and 6A
The Taxing Officer did not ignore the applicable scales; travel between Nairobi and Narok reasonably attracted additional costs, and mere dissatisfaction with quantum is insufficient
The Court noted Schedule 6(9) caps service fees within three kilometres but permits additional reasonable costs for distance; the Advocate demonstrated travel between Nairobi and Narok. Schedule 6A(7) allows attendances at prescribed rates with discretion. The Applicant failed to show the scale was ignored or irrelevant considerations applied.
The 50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6
The 50% uplift is proper in Advocate-Client taxation and not dependent on prior party and party taxation; no error of principle demonstrated
Part B of Schedule 6 provides the fees as between advocate and client shall be increased by 50%. Reliance by the Applicant on Nyangito was distinguished, as National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo, Kinyua Muyaa and Dennis KN Magare affirm the uplift's application to Advocate-Client bills. The issue was also not raised before the Taxing Officer.
Legal principles established
#- A court on a Reference exercises limited appellate jurisdiction and will only interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision upon demonstrated error of principle
- The 50% uplift under Part B of Schedule 6 applies to Advocate-Client bills and is not dependent on prior taxation of party and party costs
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion considering nature, importance, interests of parties and complexity
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 15th May 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs to the Advocate/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014
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 E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3478 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Reference dated 15th May 2025 (arising from Taxation Ruling of 9th May 2025 in Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3478/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.