https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13124

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU** **MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E 269 OF 2025** **KIONGO PAUL MURIMI** **OMONDI ANDERSON MBAGO** **MUCHELA ASTON ON’ENGE** **P/A MURIMI, NDUMIA, MBAGO AND MUCHELA ADVOCATES**..........................................................................**APPLICANTS** **-VERSUS-** **APA INSURANCE CO. LTD.** ................................................ **RESPONDENT** **ADVOCATE – CLIENT BILL OF COSTS** ***(Matters arising from Molo CMCC No. 212 of 2014 – APA Insurance Vs Marshland Services (K) Ltd*** **RULING AND REASONS FOR TAXATION ON THE APPLICANT’S ADVOCATE CLIENT BILL OF COST DATED 12TH JUNE ,2025** **Introduction** The Applicant filed an Advocate – Client Bill of Costs on 22nd January,2026 together with a Supporting Affidavit of Mwenda P.Mwangi dated 11th May ,2026 ,urging the Taxing Officer to tax the same at **Kshs. 303,502.00** The Bill of Costs relates to legal fees for representing the Respondent in **NAKURU CMCC NO.212 OF 2014** On 28th July ,2026 Mr.Ochang for the Respondent when I directed parties to file their Written Submissions .The Respondent did not file theirs as directed . **The Law** I have carefully considered the Bill of Costs herein. This is a matter the Applicant was instructed in the year 2014 and hence the applicable **Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order** is that of **2014.** **Item No.1 – Instruction Fees** The Applicant seeks **Kshs.140,000.00** (Amendment) Order ,2014 .This Schedule provides that: **The Law** I have perused the documents attached and the value of the subject matter cannot be determined from the same. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that it is not liable to satisfy or indemnify the Defendant in respect of the judgments in **MOLOSRMCC No. 206 of 2013 and MOLOSRNCC No. 266 of 2013**, or any claims arising from the accident of 30 April 2013 involving motor vehicle registration number KAZ 790E/ZC 6923 The applicable law therefore is Schedule 7 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order ,2014 .This Schedule provides that: ***“In any suit or appeal by the nature of which no specific sum is sued for, claimed for or awarded in the Judgement (other than proceedings falling under Paragraph 3 below); such costs as the court in its discretion but not less than Kshs.20,000/=if undefended or unopposed and (subject to any special order for good reason connected with the nature and importance or the difficulty or the urgency of the matter) not to exceed Kshs.50,000/=.*** The Taxing Officer however, has discretion to increase this figure taking into account a number of factors including the following: 1. ***The nature and importance of the cause or matter.*** 2. ***The amount or value of the subject matter.*** 3. ***The interest of the parties.*** 4. ***The general conduct of the parties.*** 5. ***The complexity of the issues raised and novel points of law.*** 6. ***The time, research and skill expended in the brief.*** 7. ***The volume of documents involved.*** The discretion granted to the Taxing Officer must also be exercised judiciously and also subject to the principle of reasonableness. In the case of **PREMCHAND RAICHAND LTD & ANOTHER –VS- QUARRY SERVICES OF EA LTD & OTHERS [1972] EA PG 162** and **REPUBLIC –VS- MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE & 2 OTHERS EX – PARTE SAMUEL MUCHIRI W’NJUGUNA & 6 OTHERS [2006 ]eKLR** where the court held as follows: ***“The complex element in the proceedings which guide the exercise of the taxing officer’s discretion must be specified cogently and with conviction. If novelty is involved in the main proceedings; the nature of it must be identified and set out in a conscientious mode.*** ***If the conduct of the proceedings necessitated the deployment of a considerable amount of industry, and was inordinately time consuming, the detail of such a situation must be set out in a clear manner.*** ***If large volumes of documentation had to be clarified, assessed and simplified, the details of such initiative by counsel must be specifically indicated apart of course from the need to show if such works have not already been provided for under a different head of costs”.*** In the case of **JORETH LIMITED –VS- KIGANO & ANOTHER [2002] E.A.92** the Court set out various factors that are to be considered in determine the instruction fee namely; the importance of the matter, general conduct of the case, time taken for it’s dispatch and the impact of the case on the parties. The Court has discretion to enhance instructions fees considering the complexity of the matter, responsibility by counsel, time spent, reason done and skill deployed by counsel. The Court must ensure that the Advocates instructions fees is to seek and has more and no less than reasonable compensation for professional work done. I have carefully considered the factual and legal issues with a view to gauge complexity of issues, importance of the matter, the amount involved, perusal of entire paper work, studying and preparing for the matter, responsibility shouldered based on the nature and importance of the subject matter. Bearing in mind all the aforesaid factors and the reasons herein and in exercise of the discretion vested in me, I am fully convinced that the amount sought by the Applicant is excessive. The taxation of ‘Advocates’ instruction fees should avoid any prospect of unjust enrichment. **Article 48** of the **Constitution** of the Republic of Kenya stipulates as follows: ***“The state shall ensure access to justice for all persons and, if any fee is required, it shall be reasonable and shall not impede access to justice.”*** Although the provision is directly talking about fees, I hold the considered view that the right of access to justice should also be safeguarded in relation to costs payable to Advocates. I am fairly convinced that the basic fee applicable is governed by Schedule 7 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order ,2014. On question of increase on the aforesaid basic fee and this being an Advocate – Client Bill of Costs, I am of the considered view that **Kshs.50 ,000.00 is reasonable .(Kshs.90,000.00)** is hereby taxed off. Items relating to **service** and **attendances** are reasonably drawn to scale and I tax them as drawn apart from **Attendances 12** and **15** which are not supported by receipts .They are taxed off. **Disbursements** are supported by receipts and they are taxed as drawn . **Advocate Client Costs** The Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 Schedule 7 B on Advocate and Client costs provides that: As between Advocate and client the minimum fee shall be- 1. The fees prescribed in A above, increased by one half ;or 2. The fees ordered by the court, increased by one half ;or 3. The fees agreed by the parties under Paragraph 57 of this order increased by one – half ; as the case may be, such increase to include all proper attendances on the Client and all necessary correspondence. Total ……………………………………….….......…..….…..**Kshs.80,700.00** Add one half ……………………………………...…………**Kshs.40,350.00** **Add 16%VAT …………………………………………………Kshs.19,368.00** **Add Disbursements…………………………………………..Kshs.4,765.00** **Total ………………………………………..…..………..…..Kshs.125,815.00** **Conclusion** Based on the foregoing therefore, the Applicant’s Advocate – Client Bill of Costs dated 12th June ,2025 and filed in Court on 22nd January,2026 is hereby taxed at**Kshs.125,815.00 (*Kenya Shillings one hundred and twenty five thousand ,eight hundred and fifteen)*** A total sum of( ***Kshs.177,687.00) one hundred and seventy seven thousand, six hundred and eighty seven )*** is hereby taxed off from the entire Bill *.* 14 Days Right to file a Reference. **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **L.A. MUMASSABBA** **PRINCIPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR** **26.8.2026** **RULING DATED, READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM THIS 26TH AUGUST ,2026** **In the Presence of:** Mr. Mwenda for the Applicant Mr.Ochang for the Respondent Court Assistant: Phoebe