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 AllowedELC Misc. No. E033 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5345 (KLR)

Gichimu t/a Muhoho Gichimu & Company AdvocateAdvocate v Wanjau (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5345 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 August 2026
EME. K. Makori
1,618 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Muhoho Gichimu, Advocate, filed a Chamber Summons dated 30th September 2025 seeking review and setting aside of the taxing master's assessment of costs issued on 17th September 2025 on his Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 23rd May 2025, and re-assessment of the bill, contending that the instruction fees of Kshs 18,900 awarded were manifestly low and did not reflect the nature, complexity and conduct of the proceedings. The Respondent opposed, arguing that the legal threshold for interfering with a taxation decision - an error of principle or a manifestly excessive or manifestly low award under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - had not been met. The Court considered written submissions and the authorities. Applying Peter Muthoka & another v Ochieng & 3 others [2019] eKLR, it held that once judgment has been entered, the judgment forms the basis for determining the subject matter value for instruction fees; the judgment of 9 July 2023 in the underlying suit (CM ELC Case No. 115 of 2018) awarded general damages of Kshs 200,000, which therefore formed the basis. Since the matter was an appeal, Schedule 6(1)(b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order applied, prescribing instruction fees of Kshs 75,000 where the subject matter does not exceed Kshs 500,000, to be raised by half on an advocate-client bill. Applying the principles in First American Bank of Kenya v Shah [2002] EA 64, the Court found an error of principle in the taxation of instruction fees at Kshs 18,900. The application was allowed and the bill of costs remitted to the Taxing Master for reassessment, with costs to the Applicant - Advocate. Judgment delivered virtually at Nyeri on 19th August 2026 by E. K. Makori, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Basis for determining subject matter value for instruction fees after judgment

Holding

Following Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, the judgment (not the pleadings) is the basis; the general damages of Kshs 200,000 awarded forms the basis of the instruction fees

Reasoning

The suit was defended and a counterclaim filed; judgment was delivered on 9 July 2023 dismissing the counterclaim, issuing a permanent injunction and awarding Kshs 200,000 general damages. Applying Peter Muthoka, the value of the subject matter must be ascertained from the judgment once entered. The advocate was instructed to appeal against that decision.

p. 6
02

Applicable schedule and rate for instruction fees

Holding

Schedule 6(1)(b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order applies since the matter was an appeal; where the value does not exceed Kshs 500,000, instruction fees of Kshs 75,000 accrue, to be raised by half on an advocate-client bill

Reasoning

The Court determined that because the matter was an appeal, Schedule 6(1)(b) governed. With a subject matter value of Kshs 200,000 (below Kshs 500,000), the prescribed instruction fee is Kshs 75,000, and as an advocate-client bill it is increased by half. The taxing master's award of Kshs 18,900 was therefore erroneous.

p. 6
03

Whether the taxation disclosed an error of principle warranting interference

Holding

Yes - taxing instruction fees at Kshs 18,900 was an error of principle and warrants interference by the Court

Reasoning

Applying First American Bank of Kenya v Shah, the taxing officer failed to apply the correct basis of the subject matter value and the correct schedule, taking into account irrelevant considerations and omitting relevant ones. The award of Kshs 18,900 as instruction fees did not reflect the value of the subject matter or the nature and complexity of the matter.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Once judgment has been entered, the judgment - not the pleadings - determines the value of the subject matter for purposes of assessing instruction fees
  • A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or manifestly low
  • Where taxation discloses an error of principle, the normal practice is to remit the bill to the taxing officer for reassessment
  • Full instruction fees to defend a suit are earned the moment a defence has been filed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.The Advocate-Client Bill of Costs is remitted to the Taxing Master for reassessment in line with the principles set out above
  3. 3.Costs to the Applicant - Advocate

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 6(1)(b)

Cases cited (4)

  • Peter Muthoka & another v Ochieng & 3 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and others
    [2002] EA 64
  • Karen & Associates Advocates v Caroline Wangari Njoroge
    [2019] eKLR
  • Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet and Ohaga Advocates v Adopt Light Ltd
    HC Misc 729 of 2006
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a taxing master's decision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gichimu t/a Muhoho Gichimu & Company AdvocateAdvocate v Wanjau (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5345 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc. No. E033 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5345/eng@2026-08-19

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