Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedChamber Summons Application dated 31.07.2025 (Reference)· [2026] KEELC 4178 (KLR)

Gicheru & Company Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4178 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
17 June 2026
EWEmmanuel M. Washe
3,470 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cut a law firm's fees from over KShs. 600,000 to about KShs. 100,000, confirming that fees depend on how far a case actually goes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant advocate firm, Gicheru & Company Advocates, filed a reference by Chamber Summons dated 31.07.2025 challenging the ruling of Taxing Officer Hon. E.C. Chelule (DR) delivered on 18.07.2025, which assessed the firm's Advocate/Client bill of costs dated 17.12.2013 at KShs. 187,245 instead of the KShs. 662,860 drawn. The bill arose from a terminated engagement in Eldoret Environment & Land Court Case No. 30 of 2013, a suit valued at KShs. 20,500,000. The Applicant contended that the Taxing Officer erred in assessing instruction fees, getting up fees, VAT and attendance costs. The Respondent supported the taxation. The court identified five issues and held that the Taxing Officer applied the wrong provision of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009, having used Schedule VI(1)(j) for prerogative orders when the underlying suit sought an injunction and declaration. Applying Schedule VI A1(ii) - the suit having been determined without full trial - the court taxed instruction fees at KShs. 69,000 based on the pleaded subject matter value, taxed off the getting up fees for want of preparation for trial, allowed 16% VAT (KShs. 11,040) and restored attendance costs at KShs. 2,000. The court elected to tax the bill itself rather than remit it. The reference was found merited but, the Applicant having been only partially successful, no order as to costs was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct principle in assessing items 1, 2, 3 and 11

Holding

The Taxing Officer applied the wrong provision (Schedule VI(1)(j) on prerogative orders) to a suit seeking injunction and declaration, warranting interference on a reference

Reasoning

The suit was commenced by plaint seeking a permanent injunction and a declaration. Prerogative orders are extraordinary writs such as certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition. Neither an injunctive nor declaratory order falls within that definition, so the Taxing Officer misdirected herself on the applicable principle and the ruling had to be set aside.

p. 4
02

The correct principle for assessment of instruction fees

Holding

Schedule VI A1(ii) applies because the suit was determined without full trial; value of subject matter is taken from the pleadings (KShs. 20,500,000), yielding instruction fees of KShs. 69,000

Reasoning

The Applicant did not handle the matter to full hearing, so fees are 75% of the charge under item 1(b) for suits valued over KShs. 3,000,000. The plaintiff pleaded a value of KShs. 20,500,000 supported by an unchallenged valuation report, and this value from the pleadings is the basis of the instruction fee.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to getting up fees (Item 2)

Holding

Getting up fees taxed off as the case was never heard nor prepared for trial

Reasoning

The Applicant entered appearance in January 2013 and was replaced by January 2014, having filed only a defence and an unprosecuted preliminary objection, and had not complied with Order 11 pre-trial directions. Following Odunga J in Nyangito, no fee is chargeable where the case was not confirmed for hearing and there is no evidence of preparation for trial.

p. 7
04

VAT (Item 3) and attendance costs (Item 11)

Holding

VAT of 16% chargeable on instruction fees (KShs. 11,040); attendance at taxation assessed at KShs. 2,000 as drawn

Reasoning

There being no head for disbursements, VAT is chargeable on instruction fees under the Value Added Tax Act. The Taxing Officer gave no reason for reducing attendance costs from KShs. 2,000 to KShs. 315, a manifestly low figure, so the Court restored the amount as drawn.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • On a reference from taxation, the judge will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle; questions solely of quantum are for the taxing officer except in exceptional cases.
  • The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter and other relevant circumstances.
  • No getting-up fee is chargeable until the case is confirmed for hearing, and where the case is not heard the taxing master must be satisfied the case was prepared for trial.
  • VAT is chargeable on instruction fees; a suit seeking injunction and declaration is not one for prerogative orders under Schedule VI(1)(j) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order setting aside the ruling pronounced on 18.07.2025 by Hon. E.C. Chelule regarding the bill of costs dated 17.12.2013
  2. 2.The bill of costs dated 17.12.2013 assessed at Kenya Shillings ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and seventy (KShs. 99,970/-) all inclusive
  3. 3.No orders as to costs in relation to the present reference

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderSchedule VI(1)(j); Schedule VI (a) or (b); Schedule VI A1(ii); Schedule VI Part A paragraph 2
  • Value Added Tax Act, Cap 476, Laws of KenyaSection 9(3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (5)

  • Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates -versus- Deposit Protection Fund
    (2005) eKLR
  • Arthur vs Nyeri Electricity Undertaking
    (1961) EA 497
  • Joreth Limited-versus- Kigano & Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
  • Nyangito & Co. Advocates vs Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd
  • Aoro vs Were
    (Miscellaneous Reference Application E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference from the decision of a Taxing Officer under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gicheru & Company Advocates v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons Application dated 31.07.2025 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4178/eng@2026-06-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.