https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3498

Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3498 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Narok Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023 LN Gacheru, J May 14, 2026 Between Narok County Government Client and Kemboy Law Advocates Advocate Ruling 1.This Ruling relates to the Client/Applicant’s Chamber Summons dated 12th May 2025, brought pursuant to Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, which challenges, the Taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025 by the Taxing Officer, wherein he arrived at an award of Kshs. 22,265,048/50. 2.The dispute arises from legal services rendered by the Advocate/Respondent, Kemboy Law Advocates, to the Client/Applicant, Narok County Government, in relation to ELC Case No. 22 of 2019 (formerly Nairobi Civil Suit No. 1221 of 2005), wherein the Plaintiff, County Government of Narok, sued Tourism Promotion Services Limited over ownership and title to land known as Mara/Konyaki/4. 3.The Advocate/Respondent filed an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, upon conclusion of instructions on 6th October 2022, after providing legal services spanning approximately eighteen (18) years. The Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 22,265,048/50 from the original claim of Kshs. 33,981,048/50. 4.The Client/Applicant being dissatisfied with the outcome, seeks to set aside the said taxation and have the Bill of Costs re-taxed afresh before a different taxing officer, contending that the Taxing Officer erred in principle, misapplied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and awarded excessive instruction fees and disbursements. 5.The Advocate/ Respondent opposed the application and also raised a Preliminary Objection, dated 20th May 2025, challenging the competence of the Reference on grounds of limitation under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and want of jurisdiction. 6.The Chamber Summons is dated 12th May 2025, brought by the Client/Applicant, Narok County Government, under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014. The genesis of it is the taxation proceedings in which the Advocate/Respondent, Kemboy Law Advocates, had filed an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, in relation to legal services rendered in ELC Case No. 22 of 2019, County Government of Narok v Tourism Promotion Services Limited. 7.The Client/ Applicant challenges the Ruling and Order of the Taxing Officer, which was delivered on 24th April 2025, whereby the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs, initially totaling Kshs. 33,981,048.50, was taxed at Kshs. 22,265,048/50. Being dissatisfied with the outcome, the Client/Applicant contends that the said taxation was erroneous, excessive, and was reached in disregard of the applicable legal principles under Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 8.The Client/ Applicant seeks for orders of setting aside the said taxation ruling, and directing that the Bill of Costs be taxed afresh, before a different taxing officer. Further, that the Court issues appropriate directions to ensure that the re-taxation is conducted by an officer other than Hon. Daniel Ngayo, and that the costs of the Reference be awarded to the Client/ Applicant. 9.The grounds advanced in support of the application are that the Taxing Officer allegedly failed to properly apply Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, resulting in an inflated award of instruction fees assessed at Kshs. 12,000,000/=, which the Client/ Applicant contends was arbitrary and not supported by the principles governing taxation. Further, that the Taxing Officer disregarded the Client/ Applicant’s submissions and response to the impugned Bill of Costs, thereby failing to properly evaluate the issues raised. 10.The Client/ Applicant also faults the taxing Officer’s Ruling for alleged misapplication of the law and mathematical formulae applicable under the Remuneration Order, leading to erroneous computation of the instruction fees and other items. It is contended that items in the Bill of Costs, apart from instruction and getting-up fees, were allowed without sufficient justification. Additionally, the Client/ Applicant argued that disbursements were awarded without production of supporting receipts, and that the Taxing Officer improperly applied an increase of 50% contrary to established principles, particularly where Party-and-Party costs had not been taxed. 11.In support of the application, John Mayiani Tuya, the County Secretary of Narok County Government, swore an Affidavit dated, wherein he deponed that he is duly authorized to swear the said Affidavit on behalf of the Client/Applicant and is conversant with the matters in issue. He averred that the Advocate/Respondent filed a Bill of Costs seeking Kshs. 33,981,048.50, which was subsequently taxed at Kshs. 22,265,048.50 on 24th April 2025. 12.He further deposed that, being aggrieved by the said taxation, the Client/Applicant promptly sought certified copies of the Ruling and reasons for taxation on 30th April 2025, pursuant to Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. However, although the Ruling was availed, the Taxing Officer had not furnished written reasons for the taxation by the time of filing the Reference. 13.The deponent further averred that, based on legal advice, the taxation was carried out in misapplication of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and that the amounts awarded were manifestly excessive and unjustified. Further, that the Taxing Officer failed to consider the Client/ Applicant’s submissions and thereby arrived at an unfair determination. 14.Ultimately, the Client/Applicant contended that unless the impugned taxation Ruling is set aside, and the Bill of Costs re-taxed afresh before a different Taxing Officer, the Applicant stands to suffer prejudice and injustice. The Court was therefore urged to grant the orders sought in the interests of fairness and justice. i. Notice of preliminary objection dated 20/05/2025 15.The Advocate/Respondent, Kemboy Law Advocates, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th May 2025, challenging the competence of the instant Client/Applicant’s Chamber Summons Reference Application. The Advocate/ Respondent raised a pure point of law to be determined in limine before the hearing of the substantive application. 16.The gist of the Preliminary Objection is that the instant Reference is fatally defective as it was filed outside the strict timelines prescribed under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Further, that compliance with the said timelines is mandatory, and failure to adhere thereto renders this Reference incompetent ab initio. 17.On that basis, the Advocate/ Respondent argued that the Chamber Summons Application (Reference), is not only bad in law, but also constitutes an abuse of the court process. Further, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or determine an application/ Reference filed in contravention of the statutory time limits governing References from taxation decisions. 18.Accordingly, the Advocate/Respondent argued that the Chamber Summons Reference Application dated 12th May 2025, is defective and should be dismissed with costs, without the Court delving into its merits. 19.Further, the Advocate/Respondent, through Julius K. Kemboy, t Senior Partner at Kemboy Law Advocates, swore a Replying Affidavit dated 31st October 2025, in opposition to the instant Reference. The deponent confirmed his professional standing and personal conduct of Narok ELC Case No. 22 of 2019, in which he represented the Client/Applicant for a prolonged period of approximately eighteen years. He asserted that he was fully conversant with the matter and the taxation proceedings, and that the instant Application by the Client is frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court process, and an attempt to avoid legitimate payment of legal fees. 20.He further averred that the Client’s Reference seeks to set aside the Taxing Officer’s Ruling and an Order of re-taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs, before a different Taxing Officer. He summarized the Client’s complaints being that the Taxing Officer ignored Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, awarded excessive instruction fees of Kshs. 12,000,000/=, and failed to properly consider the Client’s submissions. 21.In response, the Advocate strongly defends the taxation, arguing that the Taxing Officer correctly applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. He deposed that the matter was complex, long-running, and involved significant legal and factual issues, having been handled for about eighteen years. He states that the instruction fees were properly assessed considering the complexity, importance, labour, and time expended, as well as the nature of the dispute concerning land ownership and constitutional issues. 22.He further contended that where the value of the subject matter is not readily ascertainable, the Taxing Officer has discretion under Schedule 6, to assess instruction fees based on relevant factors. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates (2024), to support the proposition that taxation discretion must consider the nature of the matter, interests of parties, and conduct of proceedings. 23.The deponent maintains that the instruction fees of Kshs. 12,000,000/=, were justified and lawful, and that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion. He also argued that Schedule 6 sets minimum fees and allows the Taxing Officer wide discretion, which was correctly exercised in this case. 24.On the other items in the Bill of Costs, he asserted that the Taxing Officer considered all relevant factors and found them to be drawn to scale, reasonable, and justified. He further argued that disbursements were properly proved through documents filed, and that the issue of disbursements is being raised for the first time on Appeal and should not be entertained. 25.The Advocate also defended the application of the 50% increase on the taxed amount, stating that it is expressly provided under Part B of Schedule 6, of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. He relied on several authorities, including Kinyua Muyaa & Co. Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority, Dennis KN Magare v Armajit Singh Gahir, and National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates, to support the position that the 50% uplift is mandatory and properly applied. 26.He further contended that the Court, sitting on a Reference from taxation, exercises appellate-like jurisdiction and should not entertain issues raised for the first time that were not before the Taxing Officer. The deponent urged the Court to uphold the taxation as proper, lawful, and in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 27.In conclusion, the Advocate/Respondent urged the court to dismiss the Client’s Reference Application in its entirety with costs, arguing that it lacks merit and seeks to unjustifiably interfere with a lawful exercise of taxation discretion. 28.The Reference was canvased by way of written submissions wherein the parties herein through their respective advocates filed their written submissions, and cited various decided cases to support their positions. 29.The Client/Applicant filed its written submissions in opposition to the Advocate/Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th May 2025, which challenges the instant The submissions challenges the instant Chamber Summons Reference dated 12th May 2025, on the basis that it was allegedly filed outside the timelines provided under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, and was therefore incompetent and an abuse of court process. 30.The Applicant first set out the background, noting that the Advocate/Respondent filed an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023 in ELC Case No. 22 of 2019, seeking Kshs. 33,981,048/50. The Bill of costs was taxed by Hon. Daniel Ngayo on 24th April 2025, at Kshs. 22,265,04/50. Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the Applicant wrote to the Deputy Registrar on 30th April 2025, seeking reasons for taxation and expressed intention to file a Reference. The Applicant contended that despite this request, the reasons were not supplied, and the Ruling was only accessed via the Judiciary online platform, prompting the filing of the Reference on 12th May 2025. 31.On the Preliminary Objection, the Client/Applicant relied on Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and submitted that it had fully complied by issuing a timely Notice of objection within 14 days and requesting reasons for taxation. Further, that failure by the Taxing Officer to supply written reasons should not prejudice the Client/Applicant or bar it from pursuing its Reference. The Applicant further argued that it should not suffer adverse consequences arising from administrative failure by the Court Registry or taxing officer. 32.The Client/ Applicant relied on the principle that courts should lean towards sustaining suits, rather than striking them out, citing the case of D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Muchina & Another (1980) eKLR, where Madan JA emphasized that a suit should only be struck out where it is hopeless and beyond redemption. 33.In addressing the merits of the intended Reference, the Client/ Applicant identified the key issue as whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in taxing the Advocate’s Bill of Costs. It argued that the Taxing Officer wrongly exercised discretion in awarding instruction fees of Kshs. 12,000,000/=, without proper basis, contrary to established principles in taxation. 34.The Client/ Applicant relied heavily in the case of Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, where the Court of Appeal held that instruction fees must be based on the value of the subject matter as discernible from pleadings, judgment, or settlement, and where not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer must exercise discretion judiciously, considering relevant factors such as complexity, importance, and labour involved. 35.Further reliance was placed in the case of Kyalo Mbobu T/A Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Jacob Juma [2015] eKLR, which emphasized that a taxing officer must give clear and specific reasons for enhancement of instruction fees, including factors such as complexity, novelty, volume of work, and time spent. 36.The Client/ Applicant also cited the case of Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, which stressed that taxation must be based on clearly articulated reasoning, and that discretion must be exercised transparently and not arbitrarily. 37.Further, the client/ Applicant argued that the Taxing Officer failed to properly justify the award of instruction fees and did not adequately demonstrate how the figure of Kshs. 12,000,000/=, was arrived at. It was further contended that the amount was excessive, disproportionate, and not in line with the principles of fair remuneration. 38.On the issue of the 50% increment under Part B of Schedule 6, the Client/ Applicant submitted that the Taxing Officer misapplied the law by applying the increment to an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs, where no Party and Party costs had been taxed. Reliance was placed in the case of Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd (2014) eKLR, where the Court held that the 50% uplift is only applicable where Party and Party Costs have already been assessed. 39.The Client/ Applicant further relied on the case of Tom Ojienda & Associates Advocates v County Government of Narok (Misc. Application E608 of 2019) eKLR, where the Court held that applying the 50% increase in an Advocate–Client Bill without prior taxation of Party and Party costs is erroneous and unsustainable. 40.On other items in the Bill of Costs, the Client/ Applicant submitted that several items relating to attendances, drawing fees, service fees, and court attendances were grossly exaggerated, and not drawn to scale under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Specific itemized examples were given, with the Client/ Applicant asserting that proper scale fees should have been applied (such as Kshs. 1,900/= for mentions, Kshs. 3,000/=, for hearings, Kshs. 1,000/=, for drawings, and Kshs. 1,400/= for service). 41.In conclusion, the Client/ Applicant urged the Court to find that the Preliminary Objection was without merit, as the Reference was properly filed within time, or any delay was excusable due to failure to supply reasons for taxation. It further submitted that the Taxing Officer committed errors in principle warranting judicial interference, and prayed that the Court allows the Chamber Summons Application/Reference, sets aside the taxation Ruling of 24th April 2025, and either re-assesses the Bill of Costs or remits it for fresh taxation before another taxing officer. 42.The Advocate/ Respondent opposed this Client’s/ Applicant’s Chamber Summons Reference which challenges the Taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025 by the taxing master, in which the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, was taxed at Kshs. 22,265,048/50. Though the Client/Applicant contended that the Taxing Officer misapplied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, awarded excessive instruction fees, and improperly increased the taxed amount by 50%, the Advocate/ Respondent maintained that the Taxing Officer acted within the law, exercised proper judicial discretion, and correctly applied established principles governing taxation of costs. 43.At the outset, the Advocate/Respondent submitted in support of its Preliminary Objection which challenges the competence of the Client’s Reference on the basis that it was filed out of time, and without leave of the Court as required under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The Advocate/ Respondent submitted that Paragraph 11 sets out a strict procedural framework requiring a party aggrieved by taxation to first file a notice of objection within fourteen days, await reasons from the Taxing Officer, and thereafter file a Reference within fourteen days. Failure to comply with this procedure is said to be fatal to jurisdiction. 44.Reliance was placed on Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors (1969) EA 696, on the nature of preliminary objections and Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume (1992) eKLR on the need to strictly adhere to statutory disputes resolution procedures. Additional reliance wasb placed on Evans Thiga Gaturu v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (2012) eKLR, Multiline Motors (Kenya) Ltd v Migori County Government (Civil Case No. 9 of 2016), Aoro v Were (Misc. Reference E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR), Muturi Mwangi & Associates v Mwangi (E163 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1604 (KLR), and Vincent Narisia Krop & 3 Others v Martin Semero Limakou & 12 Others [2021] eKLR, all of which underscore that non-compliance with Paragraph 11 renders a Reference incompetent. 45.On the merits of taxation, the Advocate/Respondent submitted that the jurisdiction of a Judge sitting on Reference from taxation is limited, and that interference is only permissible where the Taxing Officer committed an error of principle, considered irrelevant factors, or failed to consider relevant ones. 46.For the above submissions, reliance was placed on Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162, First American Bank of Kenya v Shah (2002) EA 64, Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92, Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates (Petition E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR), Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (2000) UGSC 3, and Republic v Minister of Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna [2006] eKLR, all of which affirm that taxation is a discretionary function to be exercised judiciously and not interfered with merely because a court would have awarded a different figure. 47.On instruction fees, the Advocate/Respondent submitted that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion under Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order because the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings. In such circumstances, it argued that the Taxing Officer was entitled to consider factors such as the nature and importance of the matter, its complexity, the volume of work, the responsibility assumed by counsel, and the duration of the matter, which in this case spanned approximately eighteen years. 48.Reliance was placed on Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92, Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162, Jeremiah Muku v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & Another [2015] eKLR, Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission v Chief Justice of Kenya & Another [2014] eKLR, and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates (2024) KESC 44 (KLR), which collectively emphasize that taxation is a balancing exercise, and that instruction fees must reflect both effort and responsibility. 49.The Advocate/Respondent further submitted that the Taxing Officer properly assessed the complexity of the dispute, which involved a long-standing land matter concerning Mara/Koinyaki/4, substantial legal issues under constitutional and land law, and extensive litigation history spanning multiple years. It is therefore contended that the instruction fees awarded were neither excessive nor arbitrary, but grounded in the applicable legal principles and the discretion vested in the Taxing Officer. 50.With respect to the taxation of other items, the Advocate/ Respondent maintained that all items were properly drawn in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Attendances, service fees, and drawing charges were said to be justified by the nature of work undertaken, including extensive court attendances and physical travel between Nairobi and Narok prior to the adoption of virtual court systems. The Advocate further relied on Schedule 6A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to justify fees on attendances and services, arguing that the Taxing Officer correctly applied the relevant scales and exercised discretion appropriately. 51.On the issue of the 50% increase on the Advocate–Client Bill of costs, the Advocate/ Respondent submitted that this increment is mandatory under Part B of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. It is argued that once a bill is taxed under the Advocate–Client scale, it must be increased by 50% before VAT is applied. 52.For this argument, reliance was placed in the following cases; Kinyua Muyaa Co. Advocates vs Kenya Ports Authority & Others [2017] eKLR, Dennis KN Magare & Another v Armajit Singh Gahir & 5 Others [2021] KEHC 12931 (KLR), National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates (2021) eklr, and Havi & Co Advocates v Purma Holdings Ltd & 2 Others [2024] KEHC 3690 (KLR), all of which affirm that the 50% uplift is a statutory requirement and not discretionary. 53.Finally, the Advocate/ Respondent submitted that costs should follow the event, and since the Reference is unmeritorious, the Client/ Applicant should be condemned to pay costs. Therefore, the Taxing Officer properly exercised his discretion, applied the correct legal principles, and arrived at a fair and reasonable taxation. The Advocate/ Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the instant Reference in its entirety with costs and uphold the Taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025. 54.After considering the instant Reference, the argument for and against the said Reference, the Court identifies the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Client’s/ Applicant’s Reference is competent in light of Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order;ii.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs;iii.Whether the award of instruction fees and other items was excessive or improperly assessed;iv.Whether the 50% increase under Part B of Schedule 6 was properly applied;v.What orders should issue as to costs. A. Analysis and Determination I. Competence of the Reference 55.Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order establishes a strict procedural framework requiring an aggrieved party to file a Notice of Objection within 14 days, await reasons from the Taxing Officer, and thereafter file a Reference within 14 days. 56.The importance of compliance with statutory procedure has been affirmed in numerous authorities, including Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume (1992) eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that where a statute provides a clear procedure, that procedure must be strictly followed. 57.Similarly, in the case of Evans Thiga Gaturu v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (2012) eKLR, the Court held that failure to comply with Paragraph 11 renders a Reference incompetent. 58.In the present case, while the Client/ Applicant contends that it requested reasons, the record shows that the Reference was filed outside the stipulated timeline and without leave of Court under Paragraph 11(4). No sufficient explanation for the delay has been provided. 59.Accordingly, the Court finds that the Reference is procedurally defective and incompetent. II. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle 60.The guiding principles for interference with taxation are well settled. In Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162, the Court held that costs must be fair, reasonable, and not punitive, and that a taxing officer must exercise discretion judicially. 61.Further, in First American Bank of Kenya v Shah [2002] EA 64, the Court held that a Judge will only interfere where the taxing officer acted on a wrong principle or awarded an amount that is manifestly excessive. 62.The same position was reaffirmed in the case of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, where the Court stated that where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer is entitled to exercise discretion based on complexity, importance, and labour involved. 63.In the present case, the record shows that: The matter was highly complex, involving land ownership disputes; The litigation spanned approximately eighteen years; The Taxing Officer considered all relevant factors, including labour, responsibility, and importance of the matter. 64.There is no evidence that irrelevant considerations were considered or relevant ones ignored. Accordingly, this court finds no error of principle has been demonstrated. III. Instruction Fees and Other Items 65.Instruction fees are governed by Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer has discretion to assess reasonable fees. The Supreme Court in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates (2024) KESC 44, held that taxation is an evaluative exercise requiring consideration of complexity, importance, and conduct of proceedings. 66.Similarly, in Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna [2006] eKLR, the Court emphasized that taxation is not a mathematical exercise but an exercise of judgment. 67.The Court finds that the instruction fee of Kshs. 12,000,000/=, was justifiably given: The long duration of litigation; the complexity of land and constitutional issues; the volume of work undertaken, were factors considered when the taxing master awarded the instruction fees as he did. This court finds no reasons to interfere with that award. 68.On the Application of the 50% Increase, the court notes that Part B of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides that in Advocate Client taxation, the fees assessed under Part A are increased by 50%. In the case of National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates (2021) eKLR, the Court held that the 50% increase is mandatory and applies automatically once taxation is done under Advocate–Client instructions. Further, in Kinyua Muyaa & Co Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority (2017) eKLR, the court held that the uplift applies to the total taxed amount. 69.Accordingly, this court finds and holds that the Taxing Officer correctly applied the statutory 50% increase, and finds no reasons to fault that holding. 70.From the foregoing analysis, the Court finds and holds that:i.The instant Reference is incompetent for failure to comply with Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order;ii.No error of principle has been demonstrated in the taxation;iii.The instruction fees and other items were properly assessed;iv.The 50% statutory increase was correctly applied. 71.Accordingly, the Preliminary Objection dated 20th May 2025, is upheld with costs; Further, the Chamber Summons Reference dated 12th May 2025 lacks merit, and is dismissed entirely with costs to the Advocate/Respondent.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAROK, THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.L. GACHERUJUDGE14/5/2026Delivered online in the presence ofElijah Meyoki…. Court AssistantMs. Lyona h/b for Mr. Maina Ngaruiya for the Client/Applicant.Mr. Otieno h/b for Mr. Kere for Advocate/ Respondent.L. GACHERUJUDGE14TH MAY 2026.