Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 4397 (KLR)

National Bank of Kenya Limited v Juja Cofee Exporters Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4397 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 July 2026
1,707 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a challenge to taxed legal fees, confirming affidavits cannot establish a case's value for taxation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (Ombwayo J) on the Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 12th August 2024, a reference against the Taxing Master's ruling of 30th July 2024. The Taxing Master had taxed the Applicant's party and party Bill of Costs dated 14th June 2024 at Ksh 759,470, allowing instruction fees of Ksh 375,000 and getting up fees of Ksh 125,000, while the Applicant sought a figure pegged to a claimed outstanding debt of Ksh 913,779,153. The Applicant argued the taxing master erred in principle by failing to adopt that debt as the value of the subject matter and by applying Schedule VI (other matters) instead of Schedule VI 1(b) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014. The Respondent opposed, maintaining the value was not ascertainable from the pleadings and Schedule VI applied. Adopting the Supreme Court's guidance in the NGOs Coordination Board case and the Court of Appeal's decision in Joreth Ltd vs Kigano & Associates, the court held that the value of the subject matter must be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. The Applicant's only source of the debt figure was its Replying Affidavit dated 11th February 2019, filed in response to the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2019. The court held that a replying affidavit is not a pleading and cannot be used to determine the value of the subject matter. The reference was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in assessing instruction and getting up fees without regard to the value of the subject matter (the claimed debt of Ksh 913,779,153.00)

Holding

No error of principle was established; the replying affidavit relied on by the Applicant is not a pleading and cannot be used to determine the value of the subject matter.

Reasoning

The Applicant contended the taxing master ignored the debt figure stated in its Replying Affidavit dated 11th February 2019. The court observed that this affidavit responded to the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2019 and is not a pleading. Under Joreth Ltd, value must be ascertained from pleadings, judgment or settlement; failing that, the taxing officer may exercise discretion. The Applicant therefore failed to show the taxing officer applied the wrong principle.

Legal principles established

#
  • A single judge may only interfere with a taxing officer's decision on taxation where there is an error of principle, or where the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or manifestly deficient; the court will not interfere merely because it would have awarded a different figure.
  • The value of the subject matter for purposes of taxation must be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter and other relevant circumstances.
  • A replying affidavit cannot be used to determine the value of the subject matter for taxation purposes.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's Chamber Summons Application dated 12th August, 2024 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Master's decision; court invoking its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with taxation where the taxing officer erred in principle

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "National Bank of Kenya Limited v Juja Cofee Exporters Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4397/eng@2026-07-09

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