Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3499 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Kshs. 5 million advocate fee award against Narok County Government, confirming clients must prove a real legal error to challenge taxed fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Instruction fee of Kshs. 2,000,000
No error of principle; fee proportionate given prolonged litigation, multiple public entities and public interest in judicial review over the Maasai Mara
Where subject matter is not ascertainable from pleadings, the taxing officer has discretion to assess instruction fees based on complexity, importance, novelty, responsibility, time expended and conduct of proceedings. The Taxing Officer considered the nature, duration, multiplicity of parties and public interest. Mere disagreement with complexity is insufficient to displace the discretion.
Service fees and attendance items under Schedules 6 and 6A
No demonstrated misapplication of the scale; service fees distance-dependent and attendances within the Taxing Officer's discretion
Service fees under Schedule 6(9) depend on distance and attendant costs; the services involved travel between Nairobi and Narok. Schedule 6A(7) grants discretion to assess attendance fees based on nature, duration and complexity. The Applicant failed to demonstrate with precision how the scale was misapplied.
50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6
Lawfully applied; the uplift is a statutory entitlement not dependent on prior Party and Party taxation
Schedule 6 treats Advocate–Client taxation as a distinct regime. The Applicant's contention that the uplift requires prior Party and Party taxation is not borne out by the current structure of Schedule 6. The court aligned itself with authorities affirming the mandatory nature of the uplift.
Whether grounds existed to warrant interference
No; complaints related to quantum, not identifiable errors of principle
Dissatisfaction with the amount taxed is not a ground for interference. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the Taxing Officer ignored relevant considerations, considered irrelevant factors, or applied wrong principles. The Taxing Officer's decision fell within the permissible ambit of judicial discretion.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision merely because it would have reached a different figure; interference is only justified where the taxing officer proceeded on wrong principles or the award is manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an error in principle
- The 50% uplift in Advocate–Client taxation is a statutory entitlement under the Remuneration Order and is not contingent upon prior Party and Party taxation
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons Reference dated 15th May 2025 is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Advocate/Respondent
- 2.The Taxing Officer's Ruling delivered on 9th May 2025 is upheld, with costs to the Advocate/Respondent
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer (Narok)
- 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 E006 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3499 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Reference dated 15th May 2025 (Taxation Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3499/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.