Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3481 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs. 17.9 million advocate fee award, ruling clients must prove an error of principle—not just disagree with the amount—to overturn taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court may interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion
Interference requires demonstration of error of principle or a manifestly excessive or inadequate award; mere dissatisfaction with quantum is insufficient.
The court restated the settled principles from Premchand Raichand, Joreth and Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol, holding that the reference court examines whether an error of principle was demonstrated, not whether it would have awarded a different figure. The applicant had to show a wrong principle, failure to consider relevant factors, consideration of irrelevant factors, or a manifestly excessive award.
Whether instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000 were excessive
The fees were not manifestly excessive; the Taxing Officer considered the nature of the dispute, the duration (approximately 10 years) and the volume of documentation.
Instruction fees cover the entire scope of legal work and are assessed with reference to relevant factors where the subject-matter value is not ascertainable. On perusal of the impugned ruling, the Taxing Officer considered relevant factors under Schedule 6. Although the figure was substantial, it was not so manifestly excessive as to constitute an error of principle.
Whether taxation of service and attendance items was erroneous
The impugned items were properly allowed; service fees are capped only within a limited radius and enhanced charges are justified by distance; attendances up to Kshs. 15,000 are permitted under Schedule 6A.
The court found that service involved travel between Nairobi and Narok, justifying enhanced charges under Schedule 6, and that attendances were within Schedule 6A limits. The applicant failed to demonstrate with specificity how the items violated the scale; mere dissatisfaction with amounts is insufficient grounds for interference.
Whether the 50% increase of taxed costs was lawful
The 50% increase was lawful; the court found the line of authorities allowing direct enhancement of Advocate–Client bills more persuasive, and the issue could not be raised for the first time on reference.
The court preferred the authorities interpreting Part B of Schedule 6 as requiring the Schedule 6(A) amounts to be increased by 50% for Advocate–Client bills without prior taxation of Party-and-Party costs, as according with the plain wording of the Remuneration Order. Further, since the point was not raised before the taxing officer, it could not be introduced at the reference stage.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless a wrong principle was applied, relevant factors were ignored or irrelevant ones considered, or the award is manifestly excessive or low so as to amount to an injustice.
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from the pleadings, the taxing officer may exercise discretion based on factors such as the nature and importance of the matter, complexity, interests of the parties and conduct of proceedings.
- An Advocate–Client Bill of Costs is taxed by applying Schedule 6(A) and increasing the result by 50%, without first taxing Party-and-Party costs.
- A Reference cannot introduce new issues not canvassed before the taxing officer.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons Application dated 25th February 2025 is dismissed.
- 2.The taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th October 2023, as assessed on 19th February 2025, is upheld.
- 3.Costs of the Reference are awarded to the Advocate/Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LMSC. E016 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3481/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.