Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3480 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Narok County's challenge to a Kshs 2.97 million legal fee bill failed because complaining about the amount alone is not enough to overturn a taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the Reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The Preliminary Objection failed; the Reference was filed within a reasonable time after the applicant accessed the ruling via the Judiciary portal
The ruling was delivered on 24th April 2025 and the applicant issued a Notice of Objection on 30th April 2025 and filed the reference on 12th May 2025 after accessing the ruling electronically. Although no enlargement of time was sought under paragraph 11(4), the court, guided by the principle that courts should sustain rather than terminate proceedings on technicalities, found the reference filed within a reasonable time and declined to strike it out on purely procedural grounds.
Whether the instruction fee of Kshs. 1,500,000 was excessive
No basis to interfere; the taxing officer considered the nature, duration and work involved
Applying Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates and the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, where the value of the subject matter is unascertainable the taxing officer may exercise discretion guided by the nature and importance of the matter. The taxing officer considered the nature of the dispute, its duration and the work involved, and no irrelevant factor was considered or relevant one ignored.
Whether the other items (drawing, perusals, photocopying, attendances, services) were properly taxed
They are recognized under the Advocates Remuneration Order and no specific error of principle was demonstrated
The respondent demonstrated that the taxed items related to perusals, attendances and disbursements, all recognized under the Advocates Remuneration Order, with documentary support. Applying Jeremiah Muku v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered, the taxing officer must consider labour, time and complexity, and no specific error of principle was shown.
Whether the 50% increase on the taxed costs was lawful
Correctly applied; Part B of Schedule 7 mandates a 50% increase on advocate–client bills of costs after taxation
Relying on Kinyua Muyaa & Co. Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority Pension Scheme, National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates and Dennis KN Magare v Armajit Singh Gahir, the court affirmed that advocate–client bills are increased by 50% after taxation, and the increment does not depend on prior taxation of a party-and-party bill.
Whether the court should interfere with the taxation
No error of principle or manifest excess demonstrated; dissatisfaction with quantum alone is insufficient ground for interference
Applying the threshold in Keziah Gathoni Supeyo v Yano t/a Yano & Co. Advocates, interference with the taxing master's discretion is justified only where there is an error of principle or manifest excess. The applicant's complaints went to quantum, which is primarily within the domain of the taxing officer and not a sufficient ground for interference.
Legal principles established
#- A reference against taxation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of the taxing officer's reasons, but a court may decline to strike out a reference filed within a reasonable time after the party accessed the ruling
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees guided by the nature, importance and circumstances of the case
- Advocate–client bills of costs are properly increased by 50% after taxation under Part B of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
- Interference with a taxing officer's discretion is only justified where there is an error of principle or manifest excess; dissatisfaction with quantum alone is insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th May 2025 is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons Reference dated 12th May 2025 fails on the merit.
- 3.The taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, at Kshs. 2,968,278/00 is consequently upheld.
- 4.The instant Reference is dismissed with costs to the Advocate/Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 (reference against a Taxing Officer's decision)
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 E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3480 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Reference dated 12th May 2025 (arising from Narok ELC Case No. 168 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3480/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.