Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC 816 of 2012 (NBI)· [2026] KEELC 4618 (KLR)

Karume & 3 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 816 of 2012 & 47 of 2010 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4618 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 July 2026
JKJ G Kemei
4,171 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a Kshs 10 million instruction fee award, ruling that taxing officers cannot inflate legal fees by counting costs already covered elsewhere.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (J G Kemei J) on a Chamber Summons dated 17/2/2026 filed by the 3rd Defendant under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, challenging the Taxing Officer's (Hon. Judith Omollo) decision of 30/1/2026 on Items 1 (Instruction Fees) and 2 (Getting Up Fees) of the Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs. The Taxing Officer had taxed total costs at Kshs. 13,784,645/=, including instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000/= - enhancing the basic fee of Kshs. 75,000 by a factor of 133 - and getting-up fees of Kshs. 3,333,333/=. The Applicant contended the award rested on speculative considerations (acreage, location, presumed property value) without valuation evidence, and double-counted attendances and appellate costs already taxed (Kshs. 1,500,000/= instruction fees having been awarded in the Court of Appeal). The Respondent maintained the discretion was properly exercised given the complexity and duration of the 14-year litigation. The Court framed a sole issue: whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle. Applying First American Bank v Shah, Joreth Ltd v Kigano, Premchand Raichand and Kamunyori, the Court held that while the subject matter value was unascertainable and discretion properly invoked, the Taxing Officer erred by factoring in court attendances and appeals whose costs were separately chargeable or already taxed, vitiating the award as manifestly excessive. The getting-up fees, derived from the inflated instruction fee, fell with it. The Chamber Summons was allowed; the Bill of Costs dated 21/10/2025 was remitted for taxation of Items 1 and 2 before a taxing officer other than Hon. Judith Omollo, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000/= was vitiated by an error of principle

Holding

Yes - the Taxing Officer erred by factoring in attendances and appellate costs already taxed elsewhere, rendering the award excessive

Reasoning

Although the value of the subject property was unascertainable and the Taxing Officer was entitled to exercise discretion, she wrongly considered attendances before two judges and the fact of appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, matters chargeable or already taxed separately. This was an error of principle making the award manifestly excessive, warranting interference and remission for fresh taxation of Items 1 and 2.

p. 13
02

Consequence for the getting-up fees

Holding

Getting-up fees, being one-third of the instruction fees, must be adjusted along with the instruction fees

Reasoning

Since the getting-up fee is computed as one-third of the instruction fee, once the instruction fee is found to have been determined on an erroneous principle, the getting-up fee derived from it cannot stand and must be revisited on remission.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • A Court should refrain from interfering with a taxing officer's decision unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle.
  • Where the sum awarded on taxation is so manifestly excessive, an error of principle can be inferred, and an instruction fee arrived at on wrong principles will be set aside.
  • A taxing officer may only consider attendances and appeals chargeable separately under the Advocates Remuneration Order; taking them into account in fixing instruction fees is an error of principle.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 17/2/2026 is allowed
  2. 2.The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 21/10/2025 is remitted for taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. Judith Omollo, Deputy Registrar
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karume & 3 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 816 of 2012 & 47 of 2010 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4618 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 816 of 2012 (NBI). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4618/eng@2026-07-13

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