Nyachoti and Company Advocates v Gacheru (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 13 of 2022) [2022] KEMC 27 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court taxed an advocate's fee bill at Ksh. 2.65 million instead of the Ksh. 5.7 million claimed, because the disputed land's value could not be proven from the pleadings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Determination of instruction fees absent an ascertainable subject-matter value
Instruction fees taxed at Ksh. 1,110,000/= instead of the Ksh. 2,162,500/= claimed
The court could not discern the value of the subject matter from the pleadings, any judgment or settlement. It instead considered the nature of the land dispute (ownership of 1.3 Ha subdivided into at least 11 plots, with fraud pleaded against purchasers for value), the complexity, the acreage, and the work done by the Advocate, concluding Ksh. 1,100,000/= (stated as 1,110,000/= for item 1(a)) was fair and reasonable.
Entitlement to getting up fees
Getting up fees awarded at Ksh. 370,000/=, not the Ksh. 720,833/= claimed
The court record showed the matter was certified ready for hearing on 12th October 2021 and set down for hearing on 6th December 2021, adjourned by the 2nd Defendant to 16th February 2022. The Advocate was thus entitled to getting up fees, but the amount claimed was reduced having regard to the record.
Evidentiary value of prior certificates of taxation and judgments from other courts
Not relied upon because they were not converted into evidence
The Respondent urged the court to consider that a taxing master had taxed a similar matter involving the same parties and subject matter at Ksh. 159,500/= instruction fees. The court held that although invited to take judicial notice, the certificate was not converted into evidence and therefore could not be relied upon.
Whether prior lump-sum payment of Ksh. 926,500/= defeats the Bill
The issue stood determined by the court's ruling on the Notice of Motion dated 2nd September 2022; the court proceeded to tax the Bill
The Respondent contended the Advocate had been paid a one-off payment of Ksh. 926,500/= and it was unjustified to claim more. The court had already dealt with the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 2nd September 2022 on 30th September 2022, so the issue stood determined and the taxing officer proceeded to tax the Bill.
Taxation of individual drawing, perusal, attendance and incidental items
Ambiguous, unsupported or repetitive items taxed off; supported items taxed as drawn or per folio under Schedule 6 of the ARO
Items lacking clarity (e.g. unspecified copies, unproduced letters, items unsupported by the record or evidence, repetitions) were taxed off entirely. Items capable of verification were taxed per folio (a folio being 100 words under Rule 17) or as drawn under the relevant paragraphs of Schedule 6 of the ARO.
Legal principles established
#- Judgments or certificates of taxation from other courts must be converted into evidence before a taxing officer can rely on them, even where judicial notice is invited
- Where the value of the subject matter cannot be discerned from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the taxing officer must determine instruction fees from the nature of the suit, the record, the acreage/subject matter, and the work actually done
- Ambiguous or unsupported items in a bill of costs are taxed off
Court orders
#- 1.Item 1 (a) instruction fees taxed at Ksh. 1,110,000/= with Ksh. 1,052,500/= taxed off
- 2.Getting up fees taxed at Ksh. 370,000/= with Ksh. 350,000.33/= taxed off
- 3.Part A of Schedule 6 taxed at a total of Ksh. 1,511,020/=; increased by 50% to Ksh. 2,266,530/=; VAT at 16% of Ksh. 2,274,030/= added at Ksh. 362,644.80/=; disbursements of Ksh. 16,620/= added
- 4.The Bill of Costs dated 27th July 2022 and filed on 29th July 2022 taxed at Ksh. 2,645,794.80/=
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs of this Bill
- 6.Ruling to be transmitted to the parties via their provided emails by consent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 (Legal Notice No. 35), Schedule 6, costs of proceedings in the High Court and Courts of Equal Status under Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kimani v Behlani & another (Land Case Appeal E178 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4560 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4560 (KLR)16 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyachoti and Company Advocates v Gacheru (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 13 of 2022) [2022] KEMC 27 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Kwale ELC Case No. 72 of 2021 (Bill of Costs filed 29th July 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2022/27/eng@2022-12-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.