Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3479 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs. 5.37 million fee award to Kemboy Law Advocates, ruling that Narok County Government failed to show the taxing officer made any legal error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interference with the Taxing Officer's discretion
The threshold for interference was not met; the Court must exercise restraint
The Court applied Premchand Raichand, First American Bank v Shah, Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol, holding that interference is justified only where the Taxing Officer misdirected himself in principle or considered irrelevant factors. It found none and held mere dissatisfaction with the amount does not constitute a ground for interference.
Instruction fee of Kshs. 3,000,000/-
Properly taxed; relevant factors were considered despite unascertainable subject matter value
The Taxing Officer considered the constitutional nature of the petition, duration of representation of about four years, multiplicity of parties, complexity regarding evictions and public land, and the labour and responsibility involved, consistent with Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte W'Njuguna.
Service fees and attendances
No legal misdirection demonstrated; Schedule 6A permits mileage-based and enhanced fees
The Court accepted that Schedule 6A(9) allows additional reasonable charges depending on distance beyond the prescribed radius, and that service between Nairobi and Narok justifies enhanced fees. Schedule 6A(7) provides a ceiling but does not remove discretion to assess reasonable fees depending on complexity and nature of attendances.
50% increase under Part B of Schedule VI
Correctly applied; it is mandatory in Advocate–Client taxation and does not require prior party and party taxation
Relying on Kinyua Muyaa v Kenya Ports Authority, Dennis KN Magare v Armajit Singh Gahir and National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo, the Court held the language of Schedule VI(B) is mandatory. It also noted the Applicant did not raise the issue before the Taxing Officer, so it could not be introduced at the reference stage.
Legal principles established
#- A court on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion unless a wrong principle was applied or the award is manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may exercise discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter, interests of parties, conduct of proceedings and relevant circumstances
- Under Part B of Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, the 50% increase applies in Advocate–Client taxation without 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
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons Application or Reference dated 8th May 2025 is not merited and is dismissed entirely
- 2.The Taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025 is upheld in its entirety
- 3.The Advocate/Respondent shall have costs of this Reference
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Taxing Officer, Hon. Daniel Ngayo, SRM)
- Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023
- 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 E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3479 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Reference dated 8th May 2025 (arising from Narok Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2019, formerly Nairobi HCCP No. 323 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3479/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.