[2025] KEHC 4247 (KLR)
The court found that the Taxing Officer correctly applied her mind to the facts and law, including the appropriate scale under the Advocates Remuneration Order, in taxing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs. The subject matter was a commercial transaction, and the Taxing Officer's application of the relevant scale and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4247 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwangi Keng’ara & Company Advocates; Respondent: Joel K Kibe; Respondent: Christopher Kibe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E136 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Taxation Reference
- Outcome
- reference dismissed
- Judges
- NW Sifuna
- Legal Topics
- Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Instructions Fees, Commercial Transactions, Judicial Review of 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
Mwangi Keng’ara & Company Advocates
Applicant
Joel K Kibe
Respondent
Christopher Kibe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Taxation Reference
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct scale under the Advocates Remuneration Order in taxing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.
- 2 Whether the computation of instruction fees was proper given the nature of the commercial transaction.
- 3 Whether the Taxing Officer's decision should be set aside for misapplication of the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Taxing Officer correctly applied her mind to the facts and law, including the appropriate scale under the Advocates Remuneration Order, in taxing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs. The subject matter was a commercial transaction, and the Taxing Officer's application of the relevant scale and computation of instruction fees was proper. The court emphasized that taxation is a judicial function, not a mere mathematical exercise, and that the fees awarded were fair and not exploitative. As a result, there was no basis to interfere with the Taxing Officer's decision, and the reference was dismissed.
Court Disposition
reference dismissed
Orders
- The Taxation Reference is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mwangi Keng’ara & Company Advocates v Kibe & another (Miscellaneous Application E136 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 4247 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (4 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4247 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Miscellaneous Application E136 of 2022
NW Sifuna, J
April 4, 2025
Between
Mwangi Keng’ara & Company Advocates
Advocate
and
Joel K Kibe
1st Client
Christopher Kibe
2nd Client
Ruling
1. This ruling is from the Taxation Reference filed by the Advocate and her clients the Respondents. It was brought vide a Chamber Summons dated 15th September 2022. The same which seeks to set aside the Taxation Decision of Hon. C. Wanyama (Taxing Officer) dated 29th July 2022, was brought under the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (ARO).
2. It has faulted the said Taxing Officer’s taxation of this Advocate’s Advocate-Client Bill costs dated 21st February 2022. The Taxing Officer taxed off Ksh19,180,187=. Hence taxing the said Bill at Kshs1,671,735= inclusive of 16% Value Added Tax (VAT).
3. The Application has principally faulted the Taxing Officer, on computation of Instructions Fees. It has contended that the Taxing Officer applied schedule 1 scale 2 of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) to determine instructions fees. That, that is the scale for Debentures, Mortgages and Charges. That yet the subject matter of the taxation was a commercial transaction for acquisition of a majority shareholding. That by so doing, the computation substantially reduced the fees.
4. The Advocate has contended that the Taxing Officer ought to have applied Schedule 1 Scale 2 of the Advocate Remuneration Order (ARO) instead of Schedule 5 Part 2 of the same.
5. Taxation is a judicial function rather than a mathematical exercise. By it, the Taxing Officer should apply the correct principles as well as the correct Remuneration Order and scales. Besides, legal fees awarded to an advocate should be such as compensate the Advocate for the service rendered. The fees should not be such as exploit the Client or amount to unfair enrichment of the Advocate.
6. Upon carefully appraising the Reference, the parent subject matter of taxation, the taxation proceedings, the taxation decision dated 29th July 2022, as well as the rival submissions; I am satisfied that the Taxing Officer applied her mind correctly. Hence her taxation cannot be faulted. For that reason, this Reference lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNAJUDGE