Njoroge & 2 others v Kenya Medical Supplies Authority & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E145 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court confirmed that lawyers cannot inflate fees on constitutional petitions by citing the value of the subject matter, sending the fee back for fresh taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference under rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The reference was competent. The request for reasons dated 15th April 2026 was received by the taxing master within 14 days and answered on 7th May 2026; the reference filed 11th May 2026 was within 14 days of that response. Failure to pay the Kshs 75 invoice for the later CTS upload was of no legal consequence, and the absence of item particulars was excusable where the whole ruling was challenged.
Rule 11(1) requires notice within 14 days of the decision; the taxing master had already received and answered the request for reasons before the CTS upload, so the upload was overtaken by events and mere technicality. The taxing master herself raised no complaint about lack of particulars. The reference was therefore lodged within 14 days of the reasons under rule 11(2).
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in taxing instruction fees and getting up fees
Yes. The taxing master correctly invoked Schedule 6A(1)(j) but then based the Kshs 3,000,000 instruction fee on the value of the subject matter, an irrelevant private-law factor, without justifying the increase from the Kshs 100,000 minimum on the permitted criteria.
In a constitutional petition, taxation falls under Schedule 6A(1)(j); reliance on value of subject matter per Joreth v Kigano is a private-law guide inapplicable to public-law bills. Having found the petition raised no complex, difficult or novel questions, the taxing master gave no justification for raising the fee from the Kshs 100,000 minimum. The instruction fee and the derivative getting-up fee were therefore erroneous in principle and set aside.
Whether the taxation of the drawing items was erroneous
No. All documents drawn by the advocate relating to the suit and bill of costs were chargeable under the schedule, and no error was found in the taxing master's treatment of the drawn items.
Rule 75 permits documents charged by folio to be produced or their length certified, and Schedule 6 provides fees for pleadings, other documents and correspondence. The court, having perused the drawings, found the taxing master's decision on those items free of error, so that limb of the reference failed.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter, a private-law consideration, is not a basis for taxing instruction fees on a bill arising from a constitutional petition; Schedule 6A(1)(j) applies
- A request for reasons received by the taxing master within 14 days satisfies rule 11(1), and subsequent portal upload is a matter of technicality
- Where a party is aggrieved by an entire taxation ruling, it is superfluous to particularise items in the notice of objection
Court orders
#- 1.Fresh taxation/assessment of the Respondents/Petitioners' Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 11th December 2025 on instruction fee and getting up fee before a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Rebecca Thyaka
- 2.The decision of the Taxing Officer on instruction fee and getting up fee set aside
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & 2 others v Kenya Medical Supplies Authority & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E145 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Petition No. E145 of 2024 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2432/eng@2026-08-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.