[2025] KEELRC 971 (KLR)
The court found that both parties agreed the Taxing Officer's ruling did not conform to established principles of taxation, particularly regarding ascertainment of the subject matter's value and consideration of relevant factors. The Statement of Claim clearly indicated the value of the subject matter, making it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 971 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kemboy Law Advocates; Respondent: Narok County Government
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application allowed; ruling of Taxing Officer set aside by consent; parties to negotiate settlement or bill to be taxed afresh if no agreement
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fees, Reference Against Taxation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kemboy Law Advocates
Applicant
Narok County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in determining the value of the subject matter for purposes of taxation.
- 2 Whether the Taxing Officer failed to consider relevant factors in assessing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.
- 3 Whether the ruling on taxation should be set aside by consent of both parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both parties agreed the Taxing Officer's ruling did not conform to established principles of taxation, particularly regarding ascertainment of the subject matter's value and consideration of relevant factors. The Statement of Claim clearly indicated the value of the subject matter, making it ascertainable. The court concurred that the taxation exercise was flawed and, in the interests of justice and by consent of the parties, set aside the Taxing Officer's ruling. The court directed the parties to negotiate and attempt an out-of-court settlement, failing which the Bill of Costs would be taxed afresh before a different Taxing Officer.
Court Disposition
application allowed; ruling of Taxing Officer set aside by consent; parties to negotiate settlement or bill to be taxed afresh if no agreement
Orders
- The application filed by the Advocate is allowed.
- The ruling of the Taxing Officer is set aside in accordance with the wishes of both parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 971 (KLR) (28 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 971 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023
J Rika, J
March 28, 2025
Between
Kemboy Law Advocates
Advocate
and
Narok County Government
Client
Ruling
1. The Advocate / Applicant represented the Client / Respondent, in Nakuru E&LRC Cause No. 8 of 2022.
2. There was a disagreement on the legal fees payable to the Advocate, leading to taxation of an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.
3. In a ruling delivered on 23rd July 2024 by the Taxing Officer Hon. Margaret Kyalo, the Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 20,755,930.
4. The Advocate was not satisfied with the ruling, and presented this reference, through his application dated 6th August 2024.
5. The Advocate submits that the Taxing Officer misdirected herself on the law applicable to taxation. She erred by holding that the value of the subject matter was unascertainable, while the pleadings showed the value at Kshs. 1,012,296,749, as at 15th February 2022.
6. The Advocate submits also, that the Taxing Officer erred by failing to consider other equally critical factors, including nature, importance and complexity of the brief; labour expended and professional skills, expertise and responsibility exercised by the Advocate; the interest of the Parties; conduct of the proceedings; and all other relevant circumstances.
7. In its submissions dated 27th January 2025, the Client also expresses its dissatisfaction with the taxation exercise, and agrees with the Advocate that the ruling of the Taxing Officer should be set aside. Its position is that the Taxing Officer erred, by increasing the instruction fees by 50%, which would be allowable, if there was Party-Party costs, already taxed.
8. The Client prays the Court to review and set aside the ruling of the Taxing Master.
The Court Finds: - 9. The Advocate and his previous Client are in agreement that the ruling of the Taxing Officer, should be set aside, on account of offending taxation principles.
10. The Statement of Claim in E&LRC Cause, where the Advocate represented the Client, contained a prayer that the Client, is compelled to pay a sum of Kshs. 1,102,296,749. 05. The value of the subject matter was ascertainable, from the Statement of Claim.
11. The Court would agree with the Parties, that taxation did not conform to some key principles of taxation, which are well-established through case law.
12. As opined by the Court in other related references between the Parties herein [Misc. Applications E030 and E035 both of 2023], it would aid in expediting fair administration of justice, if the Parties consult, and agree on the costs without the need for re-taxation.It is ordered: -a.The application filled by the Advocate is allowed.b.In accordance with the wishes of both Parties, the Ruling of the Taxing Officer is set aside.c.Parties to negotiate and explore out-of-court settlement, without the need for re-taxation.d.If there is no settlement, the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs be taxed afresh, before a different Taxing Officer.e.No order on the costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. JAMES RIKAJUDGE