Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out Narok County's challenge to a Kshs. 22.2 million legal fee award because the county filed its objection too late.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the Reference under Paragraph 11
The Reference was filed outside the stipulated 14-day timeline and without leave under Paragraph 11(4), with no sufficient explanation, and was therefore incompetent
Paragraph 11 prescribes a strict procedure: a notice of objection within 14 days, reasons from the Taxing Officer, then a Reference within 14 days. Although the Applicant requested reasons on 30th April 2025, the record shows the Reference filed on 12th May 2025 was outside the timeline and no leave under Paragraph 11(4) was sought. Following Karume and Evans Thiga Gaturu, statutory procedure must be strictly observed and non-compliance is fatal.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle
No error of principle was demonstrated; the Taxing Officer considered all relevant factors including the 18-year duration and complexity of the land dispute
Applying Premchand Raichand and First American Bank v Shah, interference is warranted only where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle or awarded a manifestly excessive sum. The court found the matter highly complex, spanning roughly eighteen years and involving land ownership disputes, and that the Taxing Officer considered labour, responsibility and importance. No irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant ones ignored.
Instruction fees of Kshs. 12,000,000 and other items
The instruction fee was justified given the long litigation duration, complexity of land and constitutional issues, and volume of work; other items were properly assessed
Schedule 6 confers discretion to assess reasonable fees where subject-matter value is unascertainable. Citing Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte W'Njuguna, taxation is an evaluative judgment, not a mathematical exercise. The court found the Kshs. 12,000,000 instruction fee justified by duration, complexity and volume of work and declined to interfere.
The 50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6
The 50% uplift is mandatory and correctly applied to the Advocate-Client taxation
Part B of Schedule 6 provides that fees assessed under Part A in Advocate-Client taxation be increased by 50%. Relying on National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo and Kinyua Muyaa v Kenya Ports Authority, the court held the uplift mandatory and automatic, rejecting the Applicant's contention that it applies only where party-and-party costs have first been taxed.
Legal principles established
#- Compliance with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order timelines is mandatory and non-compliance renders a Reference incompetent
- The 50% increase in Advocate-Client taxation under Part B of Schedule 6 is mandatory and applies automatically
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may exercise discretion based on complexity, importance and labour involved
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 20th May 2025 is upheld with costs
- 2.The Chamber Summons Reference dated 12th 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 E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Reference from Taxation Ruling of 24th April 2025 (Chamber Summons dated 12th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3498/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.