Kibet Rop & Company Advocates v Kasarani Mall Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E252 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4599 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed advocates must challenge fee rulings through a formal reference, and companies must sign settlement consents properly for them to count.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference
The reference was competent, having been filed within 14 days of the Taxing Master's decision, notwithstanding invocation of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, which add no value but are not fatal.
The only avenue for objecting to a taxation decision is a reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Applicant did not file a notice of objection but reasons for the taxation were already contained in the ruling, so no further reasons needed to be sought. Guided by Article 159 of the Constitution on procedural technicalities and the timing of the filing, the Court found the application competent.
Validity of the consent compromising the Bill of Costs
The consent dated 21/7/2025 was not validly executed on behalf of the Respondent company; the Taxing Master was right to refuse to adopt it.
Under Section 37(2) of the Companies Act, 2015, companies act through directors in the manner prescribed. The signatories to the consent did not indicate names or capacities; the director's Letter of Authority dated 20/1/2022 did not include execution of a consent, and the director's signature on that letter differed from that on the consent. The Taxing Master's refusal to adopt the consent was therefore without fault.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in dismissing the Bill of Costs
The Taxing Master erred; having rejected the consent, he should have taxed the Bill on its merits rather than dismiss it.
An advocate who has acted for a client is entitled to legal fees. Dismissal of the Bill because the consent was invalid deprived the Applicant of an assessment of fees. The decision constituted an error of principle warranting interference, and the normal practice is to remit for reassessment before a different Taxing Master.
Legal principles established
#- Grievances arising from a Taxing Master's ruling can only be ventilated by way of a reference to a Judge under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
- The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to advocates' remuneration; the Advocates Remuneration Order is a complete code
- A judge may interfere with a Taxing Master's decision only where it is based on an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive
- A company validly executes documents in accordance with Section 37(2) of the Companies Act, 2015, by two authorised signatories or a director in the presence of a witness
- A Taxing Master who declines to adopt an invalid consent ought nevertheless to proceed to tax the Bill of Costs rather than dismiss it
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 12/11/2025 is set aside only on the dismissal of the Bill of Costs
- 2.The Bill of Costs is remitted to another Taxing Master for fresh taxation
- 3.There shall be no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 4 and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibet Rop & Company Advocates v Kasarani Mall Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E252 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4599 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA.E252.2025-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4599/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.