Otieno Okeyo & Co Advocates v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E259 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs.7.17 million taxed advocate-client costs award, finding the client failed to prove any error in how fees were calculated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the taxing officer erred in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs dated 14th November 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Kshs.5,000,000 and getting up fees of Kshs.1,666,666.67
No error of principle; the award was reasonable given the vast property and work done
The suit property's value was not established by any valuation report or by the judgment, so the taxing officer was entitled to exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees. The Kshs.100,000,000 prayer in the plaint was not granted and could not be included. Considering the size of the property (23.6 acres) and work done, the award of Kshs.5,000,000 instruction fees was reasonable. Taxation is not a mathematical exercise and courts interfere only where the award causes injustice.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion to assess a just instruction fee
- Taxation is not a mathematical exercise; a court will interfere with a taxing officer's award only where it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 5th January, 2026 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014; Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the taxed costs
Application dismissed in its entirety
Enlargement of time to file a reference
Application dismissed in its entirety
Setting aside of the Taxing Master's ruling awarding Kshs.7,171,291.67
Court found no error of principle
Costs
No order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find no error of principle committed by the taxing officer in assessing the costs herein, neither do I find any reason to interfere with the award given.
The chamber summons dated 5th January, 2026 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise; it is entirely a matter of opinion based on experience.
Issues in the judgment
#Bill of costs date appears inconsistently as 14th November 2024 in the body but the application seeks remittal of an advocate/client bill of costs dated 14th November 2025
Judgment delivered 'VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026' per header, dated 3rd September 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Otieno Okeyo & Co Advocates v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E259 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc. No. E259 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5377/eng@2026-09-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.