Njeru, Nyaga & Co. Advocates LLP v Machua & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Application E177 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6374 (KLR)

3. The court directed that the applications be canvassed by way of written submissions. Counsel for client/ applicant submitted that the taxing master erred by failing to consider the amount of Kshs 599,400 which had been paid by the client. Counsel also submitted that the Taxing Master had failed to consider that the Applicant/ Clients were not clients of the Respondent/ Advocate. Counsel argued that this amounted to an error of principle. Lastly counsel referred the court to the case of CA 345 of 2019, Francis Chege Maina versus JM Njenga &Co Advocates in which the Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue. 4. Counsel for the applicant/ advocate submitted that the grounds on the client advocate/ application are merely argumentative and intended to delay the matter. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application. 5. The court distills the following issues for determination;i. Whether the 2nd and 3rd client/ applicants were wrongly enjoinedii. Whether the Taxing master correctly taxed item 1,2, and 54-64iii. Whether the amount paid as deposit should be ofiset from the taxed amount 6. On the issue of whether the 2nd and 3rd Client were wrongly enjoined, the answer is found in the email which is attached to the advocates afidavit. In the email dated 29th October, 2021, the 2nd and 3rd Client instruct the advocate to transfer their files to another advocate. It is not expected that one would withdraw instructions which they had not issued in the first place, I therefore find this argument has no merit. 7. On the second issue, the clients submit that the items were not correctly taxed. It is dificult to understand what the clients complaint on the taxation of item 1 is considering that the taxing master taxed the item at 200,000 as they had asked. This also applies to item 2. Item 54 to 64 is the court filing fees. I find no reason for this court to interfere with the Taxing Masters taxation of the items complained of. 8. On the last issue of whether the amount that had been paid as deposit should be included in the final tally, I find that while it is true that the bill of costs should be taxed to cover the entire work done, it is only just that after the taxed amount is assessed, the taxation master should credit any amount that had been given as a deposit. 9. In the circumstances the taxed amount is upheld at Ksh 961,556 but application succeeds partially. The file is referred back to the taxation master who is to recalculate the amount payable taking into account any deposit that had earlier been made for fees towards the same case. It shall be the responsibility of the clients to provide evidence of this payment. The taxation master is then to issue a final certificate. In view of these findings the application dated 27th November, 2024 is premature and is struck out with no orders as to costs. Each party is to bear their own costs for the application. JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In the presence of: Ms Kimaru for Applicant Ms Kirui for Njeru Nyaga Court Assistant Meryline https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6374/eng@2025-01-30 2

page 2 of 2