https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4172

Lake Oil Limited v Kigera & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E317 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4172 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4172 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E317 of 2025 CG Mbogo, J July 6, 2026 Between Lake Oil Limited Client and Kigera & Company Advocates Advocate Ruling 1.Before this court for determination is the chamber summons dated 9th February, 2026 filed by the client/applicant, and it is expressed to be brought under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders:-1.That pending the hearing and determination of this reference, this court be pleased to stay execution of the ruling delivered by Hon. Judith Omollo on 28th January, 2026.2.That the court be pleased to review, vary or set aside the ruling of the deputy registrar, Honourable Judith Omollo delivered on 28th January, 2026 in respect of the advocate-client bill of costs dated 28th January, 2026.3.That in the alternative, the applicant’s advocate/client bill of costs dated 14th October, 2025 be remitted for taxation before another taxing officer. 4.That costs of this application be awarded to the applicant. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of Venkata Rama Rao, the client/applicant’s director sworn on even date. The client/applicant deposed that the taxing officer’s instruction fees of Kshs.400,000 was manifestly excessive and should be reassessed given that the claim was limited solely to a prayer for a permanent injunction. Further, that the suit never involved any special skill or complex issues that would justify an award of Kshs.400,000/= instruction fee. 3.The client/applicant deposed that the taxing officer failed to consider that the matter was resolved through written submissions and that no witness evidence was taken. He also deposed that there was an apparent contradiction in the ruling when the taxing officer found Kshs.400,000/= reasonable for instruction fees, while simultaneously taxing Item 1 at Kshs.500,000/=. In conclusion, the client/applicant deposed that it was in the interest of justice for the court to either set aside or reassess the impugned ruling. 4.The application was opposed vide the replying affidavit of Irene Wanjiru, advocate practicing in the firm of the advocate/respondent sworn on 30th March, 2026. The learned counsel averred that the taxing officer arrived at the Kshs.400,000/- figure having appropriately considered the nature of the prayers sought, the general labour evidenced by the documentation perused and the time taken to finalize the case. She further averred that there was no error of principle since the client/applicant never challenged the factors the court considered but was merely aggrieved by the final amount awarded. 5.The learned counsel averred that there was a typographical error when the taxing officer determined that Kshs.400,000/- was a reasonable instruction fee but accidentally wrote “Item 1 is taxed at Kshs.500,000” in a subsequent sentence. She averred that the same was an accidental slip and immaterial to the final outcome since the correct figure of Kshs.400,000/- was used in all final calculations. In order to maintain a clean court record, they wrote to the taxing officer on 2nd March, 2026 requesting that the error be corrected under the slip rule provided for in Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. In conclusion, the advocate/respondent averred that the taxing officer correctly taxed the instruction fees and urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. 6.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The parties filed their written submissions both of them dated 20th April 2026. I have considered the chamber summons, the response thereto and the written submissions filed by both parties. In my view, the issue for determination is whether the taxing officer erred in awarding the sum of Kshs. 400,000/- as instruction fees. 7.The circumstances under which this court may or can interfere with the taxing officer’s exercise of discretion are now well known. The taxing master must be guided by the principles governing taxation as was held in the leading case of Premchand Raichand Ltd Another -vs- Quarry services of East Africa Ltd and Another No. 3 (1972) EA 162. The principles laid out are:-i.The instruction fee should cover the advocates work including taking instructions and preparing the case for trial or appeal.ii.The taxing master was expected to tax each bill on its merits;iii.The value of the subject matter had to be taken into account;iv.The taxing master’s discretion was to be exercised judicially and not whimsically or capriciously;v.Though the successful litigant was entitled to a fair reimbursement, the taxing master had to consider the public interest such that costs were not allowed to rise to a level that would confine access to the courts to the wealthy.vi.No appeal or reference can be allowed unless the appellant can show or demonstrate that above mentioned principles have been breached because judges on appeal as a principle do not like to interfere with an assessment of costs by the taxing officer unless the officer has misdirected himself or herself in a matter of principle, but if the quantum of an assessment is manifestly extravagant, a misdirection of principle may be a necessary inference.” 8.In the instant suit, the advocate/respondent filed the advocate-client bill of costs dated 14th October, 2025 seeking costs amounting to Kshs.1,472,910/. The client/ applicant challenges the instructions fee that was taxed at Kshs.400,000/- claiming that the same was exorbitantly excessive. 9.Being dissatisfied with the ruling by the taxing officer delivered on 28th January, 2026 the client/applicant seeks that the ruling be set aside. In doing so, the client/ applicant argued that the matter having been resolved through written submissions and no witness evidence taken, it was not complex to justify a Kshs.400,000/= instruction fee. Further, that a contradicting figure of Kshs.500,000/- was awarded in her ruling as well as Kshs.400,000/-. 10.In opposition, the respondent contended that there was no error of principle since the taxing officer considered the nature of claim and labour involved. The learned counsel argued that there was a typographical error when the taxing officer determined Kshs.400,000/- as the reasonable instruction fee but accidentally wrote Kshs.500,000/- in the subsequent sentence. 11.In the case of Peter Muthoka & Another V Ochieng & 3 Others [2019] eKLR, the court emphasized that matters of taxation fall squarely within the province of the taxing master, and that the high court must be slow to interfere unless the discretion was improperly exercised, resulting in misdirection or manifest injustice. The court held that:“It is not lost to us, as we address that single issue, that matters of quantum of taxation properly belong in the province and competence of taxing masters. They fall within their discretion and so the high court upon a reference will be slow to interfere with them.” 12.In addition, the burden rests squarely upon the client/applicant to demonstrate, with particularity, that the taxing officer misapplied the law or omitted relevant considerations or applied the wrong schedule or paragraph under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. In the instant case, the client/applicant contended that the taxing officer failed to apply the correct principles by awarding an excessively high amount. More particularly, the taxing officer contradicted herself in respect of the instruction fees. 13.It is therefore this court’s duty to determine whether the impugned taxation was indeed tainted by error of principle to justify interference. I have keenly perused the ruling and it is not in dispute that the taxing officer under paragraph 6 found that the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable and proceeded to exercise discretion in taxing the instruction fees. The instruction fees was arrived at based on the nature of the prayers sought in the claim being permanent injunction together with the labour. 14.From the impugned ruling, an error of Kshs.500,000/- is noted as the instructions fees instead of the earlier stated amount of Kshs.400,000/-. However, from the final calculations made, the figure of Kshs.400,000/- is used to calculate instruction fees and not Kshs.500,000/- as alleged. Such a typo can be corrected by the taxing officer. Besides this, and in my view, the taxing officer considered the relevant provisions in taxation of instruction fees while also giving her reasons. I find no error of principle, and neither was the sum awarded excessive to justify interference by this court. 15.The upshot of the foregoing is that the chamber summons dated 9th February, 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE06/07/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistantMs. Were for the Client/ApplicantMr. Ogembo for the Advocate/Respondent