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 AllowedMISC. E314.2025-NBI· [2026] KEELC 5292 (KLR)

Carlisle Development Co Ltd v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5292 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 August 2026
JKJ. G. Kemei
2,776 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a wrongly calculated Kshs. 581,135 instruction fee award and ordered fresh taxation before a different taxing officer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, through its Director James Njenga Mwangi, moved the Court by Chamber Summons dated 7/10/2025 under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, seeking variation of a taxing master's ruling of 23/9/2025 that taxed Item 1 (instruction fees) of a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 14/7/2025 at Kshs. 581,135, in a compensation claim of Kshs. 2,250,000,000 for compulsory acquisition of L.R No. 209/13761 before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The Applicant contended the Taxing Master, Hon. Kaimenyi Kanyiri, miscalculated fees under Schedule 11 of the Remuneration Order, which should have been computed on a subject matter value of Kshs. 731,135,000 using the prescribed graduated scales. The Respondent defended the ruling as lawful and within the Taxing Master's discretion. The Court framed two issues: whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees, and costs. It first held that the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked to challenge taxation decisions, confirmed the reference was competent under the mandatory Rule 11 procedure, and reaffirmed that a judge will not interfere with quantum absent an error of principle. Applying the principles in Premchand Raichand, Kamunyori, Joreth, and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, the Court found that although the Taxing Officer applied the correct schedule, he used a base figure of Kshs. 120,000 not found in the schedule, constituting an error of principle and producing a manifestly low award. The Court allowed the application, set aside the instruction fee award, remitted Item 1 for re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer, and granted the Applicant costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The reference was competent and timeously filed within 14 days, conferring jurisdiction on the Court.

Reasoning

The Court outlined the mandatory Rule 11 procedure: notice of objection within 14 days, reasons from the taxing officer, chamber summons within 14 days of receipt of reasons, and appeal to the Court of Appeal only with leave. The Applicant filed the Notice of Objection and the reference on 7/10/2025, within 14 days of the 23/9/2025 ruling, and identified the specific item objected to, satisfying all requirements.

p. 6
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees

Holding

Although the Taxing Officer applied the correct schedule (Schedule 11, Rule 8), he erred in the computation, producing an award manifestly too low.

Reasoning

The value of the subject matter (Kshs. 731,135,000) was ascertainable from the pleadings and judgment. The Taxing Officer correctly identified Schedule 11, Rule 8 and applied the graduated scale, but the figure of Kshs. 120,000 as fees for the first Kshs. 250,000,000 does not appear anywhere in the schedule. The resulting award of Kshs. 581,135 was therefore computed on a wrong figure, an error of principle producing a manifestly low award warranting intervention.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The Advocates Act and Advocates Remuneration Order are complete statutes on taxation; the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked to challenge a taxing officer's decision.
  • A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion absent an error of principle or improper exercise of discretion resulting in injustice.
  • Failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter for taxation is an error of principle.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 7/10/2025 is meritorious.
  2. 2.The Taxing Officer's award of Kshs. 581,135/= as instruction fees is set aside and/or varied.
  3. 3.The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 14/7/2025 is remitted back for re-taxation of Item 1 (Instruction Fees) only before a different Taxing Officer of the Tribunal other than Hon. Kaimenyi Kanyiri.
  4. 4.The Applicant is granted costs of the application.
On appeal from
Land Acquisition Tribunal (Taxing Master's ruling)
Tribunal Case No. E044 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Carlisle Development Co Ltd v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MISC. E314.2025-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5292/eng@2026-07-17

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