PC Onduso & Company Advocates v Oldonyo Nyoike Group Ranch (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3455 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3455 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MISCELLANEOUS CASE E007 OF 2024 J OMANGE, J MAY 28, 2026 BETWEEN P.C. ONDUSO & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................................... ADVOCATE AND OLDONYO NYOIKE GROUP RANCH ............................................... APPLICANT RULING 1. This references arises out of a ruling delivered on the 5th March 2025 in respect of an advocate client bill of costs dated 10th August 2024 lodged by the firm of M/s Ashiruma & Co Advocates. The taxing master taxed the bill at Ksh. 6,122,625=. 2. The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application dated 10th April 2025 and on the applicant’s supporting afidavit sworn by Paul Chapla Onduso. The applicants cite the following grounds for the reference; a. The taxing master erred in taxing ofi Kshs 62,000,000 from item 1 and taxing ofi 20,666,667 in item 2. b. The taxing master erred in taxing ofi Kshs 20,679,037 in page 2. c. The taxing master erred in taxing ofi Kshs 6,380 in page 3. 3. None of the parties had filed submissions by the time the court was preparing its ruling in this matter hence none was considered. 4. The sole issue for determination is whether the taxing oficer exercised her discretion judiciously and whether the applicant has established basis to interfere with the taxing oficer ’s ruling dated 5th March 2025. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3455/eng@2026-05-28 1
page 1 of 2
5. Courts would not generally interfere with the decision of a taxing master. In Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR; the Court drawing from settled jurisprudence highlighted certain basic principles that ought to guide a court in hearing a reference. These are summarized below;The court should only interfere if the award is either too low or high as to amount to an injustice.The court should interfere where it is established the decision was based on error of principle.Error of principle can be inferred if a court fails to take into account relevant factors or takes into account irrelevant factors.The Advocates (Remuneration) Order expounds on the relevant factors to take into account include the nature and importance of the case or matter, the amount or value of the subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and any direction by the trial Judge.The taxing master must clearly state the reasons for any exercise of discretion. 6. The Applicant challenges the taxing ofi of Kshs 62,000,000 and by extension getting up fees in item 2. The taxing master first outlined the applicable schedule and outlined the principles in Joreth versus Kigano & Associates (2002) eKLR. In taxing ofi Kshs 62,000,000 and in awarding Kshs 3,000,000 the taxing master considered that the issues in the suit before the court were not very complex with very few documents. However, she considered the number of years the matter was in court and the interest of the parties. 7. A discretionary power must at all times be exercised judicially by those who wield this power. A court can only demonstrate that discretion was exercised judicially by giving clear reasons for the exercise of such discretion. In this instance, the taxing master clearly gave reasons for her decision in respect of each of the impugned items. I am unable fault her exercise of discretion. 8. I therefore find that the reference is not merited and is dismissed with no orders as to costs since it was not defended. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In the presence of: Mr Ashuruma for advocate/applicant. Peter – Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3455/eng@2026-05-28 2
page 2 of 2