Michael M. Kibe & Another (Practising as Wanja & Kibe Advocates) v Aryan Limited
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court upheld a Taxing Master's decision to base advocates' fees on the value shown in court pleadings, not a higher claimed market value.
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 Master erred in principle in basing instruction fees on a subject matter value of Kshs. 40,000,000/= derived from the pleadings rather than the claimed Kshs. 150,000,000/= market value
- 2.Whether the Taxing Master erred in disallowing getting-up fees where the suit had not commenced hearing
- 3.Whether the Taxing Master erred in taxing off client meetings and consultations, attendances, and disbursements
- 4.Whether the Taxing Master made consequential errors in computation of the 50% increase, VAT and interest
Key legal issues
#Determination of subject matter value for instruction fees
The Taxing Master correctly used the value ascertainable from the pleadings (Kshs. 40,000,000/= charge value); the claimed Kshs. 150,000,000/= valuation had no basis in the pleadings
Applying Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, where taxation occurs before judgment the pleadings determine subject matter value. The Plaint only disclosed a purchase price of Kshs. 19,000,000/= and a charge of Kshs. 40,000,000/=. The Applicant's tenfold-value inference from a pleading that the property's value had 'raised its value tenfold' was not a pleaded valuation of Kshs. 150,000,000/= as at 2016.
Getting-up fees
Getting-up fees were properly disallowed as there was no evidence the case was confirmed for hearing or prepared for trial
Getting-up fees require that a defence be filed and the case confirmed or prepared for hearing. Nothing was placed before the Taxing Master showing pre-trial directions, exchange of witness statements or lists of documents. The trial had never commenced. The disallowance was a lawful exercise of the Taxing Master's discretion, not an error of principle.
Standard for interference with a Taxing Master's decision
The Reference failed because no error of principle was demonstrated in respect of attendances, disbursements or computations
Citing Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex-parte Muchiri W'Njuguna, taxation is a matter of opinion based on experience; interference is warranted only on an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive or low. Having found no error on the instruction fees and getting-up fees, the court was not persuaded the remaining items disclosed any mis-assessment amounting to an error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's award unless it is based on an error of principle or is so excessive or low as to amount to injustice
- Where taxation occurs before judgment, the pleadings form the basis for determining subject matter value for instruction fees
- Getting-up fees are awardable only where the case has been confirmed or prepared for hearing, at the discretion of the Taxing Master
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 29th July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Act and the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Taxing Master's decision on Items 1, 2, 162, 163, 164 to 172, 173, 174 to 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 197, 198, 199 and 204
No error of principle established; the Taxing Master's assessment was within his discretion
Re-taxation of the Bill of Costs or reference to a different Taxing Master
The Reference lacked merit
Costs
Each party shall bear their own 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.
The Court cannot interfere with the taxing officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of Principle.
Where it happens before judgment, it is the pleadings that form the basis for determining subject value.
Getting-up fees are paid at the discretion of the Taxing Master.
In the premises I find and hold that there was no merit in the Chamber Summons dated 29th July 2025, I dismiss the same.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date (24th September 2026) postdates the application date (29th July 2025) and the case number year (2024); the 2026 date may be a typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael M. Kibe & Another (Practising as Wanja & Kibe Advocates) v Aryan Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc. Application No. E072 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5601/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.