Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC v CP Onono & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4788 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Power's court challenge succeeded because the taxing officer invented a Kshs.50,000 monthly retainer with no evidence, so the bill must be taxed afresh.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Ascertainment of the value of the subject matter
The Deputy Registrar correctly found that the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings, the judgment or any settlement, and was therefore entitled to exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees.
Although monetary claims were pleaded, the judgment did not determine liability by reference to an ascertainable monetary decree, and no settlement fixed a value. Under the settled principle from Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates, value is ordinarily derived from pleadings, judgment or lawful settlement; where these do not disclose an ascertainable value, the taxing officer must proceed by exercising the statutory discretion under the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Improper consideration in the exercise of discretion
The Deputy Registrar's use of an assumed monthly retainer of Kshs.50,000 was an error of principle, as it lacked evidential and legal foundation and materially informed the assessment of instruction fees.
The taxation proceeded precisely because there was no agreed remuneration between Advocate and Client; a hypothetical monthly retainer therefore had no evidential or legal basis. Since it formed part of the reasoning immediately preceding the assessment and was not merely incidental, it was an irrelevant consideration improperly informing the exercise of the statutory discretion, warranting supervisory intervention.
Adequacy of reasons and transparent methodology in taxation
The impugned ruling failed to disclose the analytical pathway by which the recognised considerations produced instruction fees of Kshs.6,000,000, amounting to an error of principle.
While a taxation ruling need not elaborate on every consideration, it must disclose with reasonable clarity how relevant considerations produced the fee awarded. The ruling identified relevant considerations but did not explain how they were weighed or why they justified Kshs.6,000,000. The Court could not discern the methodology, concluding the figure resulted from an unexplained evaluative choice rather than a disciplined application of principle.
Appropriate remedy on a successful reference
The proper remedy is to set aside the taxation and remit the Bill for fresh taxation before a different Deputy Registrar, not to substitute the Court's own assessment.
Taxation remains in the first instance the statutory responsibility of the taxing officer; a Judge hearing a reference should not undertake fresh taxation save in exceptional circumstances. Because the identified error concerned the legal methodology of the taxing officer, remittal to a different Deputy Registrar ensures a fresh, independent exercise of the statutory discretion, without implying bias or incompetence.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under Rule 11 is not an appeal on quantum but a supervisory proceeding directed at the legality of the taxation process.
- A Judge interferes with a taxation only where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take relevant ones into account, misapprehended the law, or where the award is manifestly excessive or low as to suggest error of principle.
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer must assess instruction fees through a reasoned, principled judicial discretion; an assumption unsupported by evidence or agreement, such as an assumed monthly retainer, is an improper consideration.
- Where an error of principle concerns the legal methodology of the taxing officer, the proper remedy is to set aside the taxation and remit the Bill to a different Deputy Registrar, not to substitute the court's own assessment.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 9 October 2025 is allowed
- 2.The ruling of the Deputy Registrar delivered on 3 October 2025, together with the resultant Certificate of Taxation, is set aside
- 3.The Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 19 October 2024 is remitted to a different Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court at Garissa, other than the judicial officer who delivered the ruling dated 3 October 2025, for taxation de novo in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order and the principles set out in the ruling
- 4.The costs of the Reference shall abide the outcome of the fresh taxation
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court at Garissa
- Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 19 October 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (supervisory jurisdiction over taxation)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC v CP Onono & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4788 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 9 October 2025 (Reference arising from Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 19 October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4788/eng@2026-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.