Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3479 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling)

Narok County Government v Kemboy Law Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3479 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3479 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Narok Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2023 LN Gacheru, J May 14, 2026 IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK (FORMERLY NAIROBI HIGH COURT CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 323 OF 2019) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 -AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION, CONTRAVENTION AND CONTINUED THREAT BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 -AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION, INFRINGEMENT, DENIAL, AND THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS -AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES (2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 50, 59, 125, 157, 258 AND 259) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA -AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ACTIONS OF, THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE, THE CABINET SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES, THE CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND COORDINATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, THE CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THE KENYA FOREST SERVICE, THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAROK AND THE INTENDED ACTIONS OF PHASE TWO EVICTIONS ON THE RESIDENTS AND POSSIBLE DESTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS, HEALTH FACILITIES, WITHDRAWAL OF SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE AREAS COMPRISED IN AREAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS ENOOSOKONI, NKARONI, SISIAN, ENAGISHOMI AND REIYO GROUP RANCHES Between Narok County Government Client and Kemboy Law Advocates Advocate Ruling 1.The matter for determination before this Court is a Chamber Summons Reference dated 8th May 2025, brought by the Client/Applicant herein Narok County Government, which challenges the Ruling and taxation of the Taxing Officer, Hon. Daniel Ngayo (SRM), delivered on 24th April 2025. By the said Ruling, the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, was taxed at Kshs. 5,374,70/.40/= in favour of the Advocate/Respondent, Kemboy Law Advocates. 2.The Reference is premised on Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, which arises from legal services rendered by the Advocate/Respondent in Narok Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2019 (formerly Nairobi HCCP No. 323 of 2019), a constitutional litigation involving multiple parties, who had alleged violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, particularly in relation to proposed evictions in areas formerly known as Enoosokoni, Nkaroni, Sisian, Enagishomi, and Reiyo Group Ranches, within Narok County. 3.The Client/Applicant is aggrieved by the Taxing Officer’s decision and contends that the taxation was conducted in error of law and principle. Further, it is alleged, inter alia, that the Taxing Officer misapplied Schedule 6 and Schedule 6A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and awarded excessive instruction fees despite the alleged absence of ascertainable value of the subject matter, improperly taxed items relating to service and attendances beyond statutory limits, and wrongly applied a 50% increment on the taxed bill. 4.The Advocate/Respondent opposes the said Reference and maintains that the taxation was properly conducted within the confines of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and settled principles governing taxation of costs. It is the Advocate/Respondent’s position that the Taxing Officer judiciously exercised discretion in accordance with binding authorities such as Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162, Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, and Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, among others. 5.The Advocate/ Respondent further contends that the matter involved complex constitutional issues spanning a period of approximately four years, thereby justifying the exercise of discretion in assessing instruction fees and other attendant items. Reliance is also placed on the principle that taxation is not a mathematical exercise but a matter of judicial discretion guided by established legal principles and the need to ensure fair remuneration without being oppressive. 6.It is against this background that this Court is called upon to determine whether the Client/ Applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the Taxing Officer, and consequently whether the taxation of 24th April 2025, should be set aside or upheld. 7.This Chamber Summons Reference dated 8th May 2025, was filed by the Client/Applicant, Narok County Government, against the Advocate/Respondent, Kemboy Law Advocates, pursuant to Para 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014. The Reference/ application arises from the taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, in respect of legal services rendered in the above referred constitutional petition. 8.Through the application, the Client/ Applicant seeks to set aside the Ruling and Order of the Taxing Officer, Hon. Daniel Ngayo, delivered on 24th April 2025, in which the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs, was taxed at Kshs. 5,374,70/.40. The Client/Applicant further prays that the said bill be taxed afresh and that such re-taxation be conducted before a different Taxing Officer. Additionally, the Client/ Applicant seeks costs of the Reference. 9.The Application/ Reference is premised on the grounds that the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in taxing the bill. In particular, the Client/ Applicant contends that there was a misapplication of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, resulting in an excessive and unjustified award. 10.The Client/ Applicant argued that the instruction fee of Kshs. 3,000,000/=, was manifestly high given that the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable, and that the matter was neither complex nor novel. The Client/ Applicant 11.further faults the Taxing Officer for allowing various items such as service, attendances, and court appearances at amounts exceeding the statutory limits prescribed under Schedule 6A. 12.The Client/Applicant further contended that the Taxing Officer improperly treated items as drawn to scale, allowed inflated sums for routine attendances and registry work, and unjustifiably increased the bill by 50%. The Client/ Applicant maintains that the taxation disregarded applicable law and failed to consider the duty of the court to safeguard public funds, the Applicant being a public entity. 13.The Application is supported by the Affidavit of John Mayiani Tuya, the County Secretary of Narok, County Government, who deposes that he is duly authorized to swear the Supporting Affidavit on behalf of the Client/Applicant. He confirms that the Advocate/Respondent filed the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, whichwas contested by the Client/ Applicant, and that the Taxing Officer delivered a Ruling on 24th April 2025 taxing the bill at Kshs. 5,374,703/40. Being dissatisfied with the award, the Client/ Applicant requested reasons for the taxation through a letter dated 30th April 2025, and subsequently obtained the Ruling via the judiciary e-filing system. 14.The deponent reiterates that the Taxing Officer misapplied the provisions of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and awarded amounts that are excessive and contrary to law. He avers that the instruction fee was unjustifiably high in light of the nature of the matter, and that several items, including those relating to service, mentions, and court attendances, were allowed in excess of the prescribed caps. He further deposes that the Taxing Officer erred by increasing the bill by 50% and by allowing inflated amounts for routine tasks such as drawing documents and attending the court registry. 15.It is the Client/ Applicant’s position, as expressed in both the Chamber Summons Reference and the Supporting Affidavit, that the Taxing Officer’s decision was based on errors of law and principle, thereby occasioning prejudice and risking injustice to the Client/ Applicant. The Client/ Applicant therefore urges the Court to set aside the taxation, order a fresh assessment before a different Taxing Officer, and grant the Orders sought in the interest of justice. 16.The Advocate/ Respondent opposed the Reference via the Replying Affidavit of Julius K. Kemboy, the Senior Partner of Kemboy Law Advocates, sworn on 31st October 2025, in opposition to the Client/Applicant’s Chamber Summons. The Advocate deposed that he had personal conduct of the underlying Constitutional Petition on behalf of Narok County Government, and is therefore competent to respond to the issues raised. 17.The Advocate/Respondent characterizes the Client’s application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process, and asserts that the instant Reference is merely an attempt to evade payment of legal fees properly earned. He confirms that he has read and understood the application and identifies the main relief sought as the setting aside of the taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025, the re-taxation of the Bill of Costs, and the assignment of the matter to a different Taxing Officer. 18.The deponent denied the Applicant’s claim that the Taxing Officer misapplied Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and maintains that the Taxing Officer properly exercised his discretion, particularly in awarding instruction fees of Kshs. 3,000,000/=. He argued that the underlying matter was complex, involving weighty constitutional questions relating to evictions in the Mau Forest areas, and alleged violations of fundamental rights. 19.According to him, the case required extensive legal research, preparation, and sustained representation over a period of approximately four years. He further states that where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment, or settlement, the law permits the Taxing Officer to exercise discretion by considering factors such as the nature and importance of the matter, the interests of the parties, and the conduct of the proceedings. In his view, the Taxing Officer correctly applied these principles. 20.On the specific objections raised by the Client/ Applicant, the deponent disputes the assertion that certain items were taxed contrary to statutory limits. Regarding service charges, the deponent clarifies that the prescribed fee of Kshs. 1,400/=, applies only within a limited geographical radius, and that additional reasonable costs are allowable depending on distance. 21.He further deposes that the nature of the proceedings required travel between Nairobi and Narok, thereby justifying higher service and attendance costs. Concerning attendances for mentions, hearings, and delivery of rulings, he contends that the applicable provisions permit higher charges than those alleged by the client/Applicant, and further points out that many of the attendances were conducted physically before the advent of virtual court sessions. 22.The deponent also defends the taxation of items relating to drawing, filing, and registry attendances, stating that all such charges were supported by documentary evidence filed together with the Bill of Costs. He emphasizes that the Taxing Officer considered these materials and correctly found the items to be properly drawn to scale. 23.With respect to the complaint regarding the 50% increase of the taxed costs, the deponent argues that such increment is expressly provided for under Part B of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order in Advocate–Client bills. He asserts that this increase is mandatory, and applies to the total fees assessed, not merely to instruction fees. He further points out that the Client/ Applicant did not raise this issue before the Taxing Officer, and is therefore improperly introducing it at the reference stage. In his view, the Taxing Officer cannot be faulted for applying a provision of law that is clear and mandatory. 24.Additionally, the deponent contends that the Court, when dealing with a reference from taxation, exercises a limited appellate jurisdiction and should not interfere with the Taxing Officer’s discretion, unless there is a clear error of principle. He maintains that no such error has been demonstrated in this case. 25.In conclusion, the Advocate/Respondent asserts that the taxation was conducted lawfully, judiciously, and in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order. He urges the Court to find that the Client/Applicant’s application lacks merit, to uphold the Taxing Officer’s decision in its entirety, and to dismiss the instant Reference with costs. 26.The court directed the parties to canvass the Reference by way of written submissions, which directions were complied with fully, and parties filed their respective submissions, and cited authorities. 27.The Client/Applicant’s filed its written submissions dated 23rd January 2026, through Maina Ngaruiya & Co Advocates, in support of the Reference herein, and from the outset, the Client/Applicant identifies the sole issue for determination as whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in taxing the Advocates/ Respondent’s Bill of Costs, as he did. The said written submissions are anchored on paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, and the guiding principles on interference with taxation as set out in the case of Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparalia & Another (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023) [2023] UGSC 12, wherein Court emphasized that a Judge will only interfere where the findings/ holdings if Taxing Officer has applied wrong principles or arrived at an amount that is manifestly excessive or low, and even then only where the error substantially affects the outcome. 28.The Client/ Applicant further relies on Keziah Gathoni Supeyo v Yano t/a Yano & Co. Advocates [2019] eKLR, which restated the principles in Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162, namely that costs must fairly compensate the successful party, not hinder access to justice, ensure consistency, and be determined judiciously without arbitrariness. 29.On the core complaint regarding instruction fees (Item 1), the client/ Applicant submitted that the Taxing Officer misapplied the law and awarded an excessive sum. Reliance was placed in the case of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, where the Court of Appeal held that instruction fees are to be based on the value of the subject matter as derived from pleadings, judgment, or settlement, or where not ascertainable, on the discretion of the Taxing Officer, guided by relevant factors. 30.For these submissions, the Client/ Applicant cited the following cases; Kyalo Mbobu t/a Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Jacob Juma [2015] eKLR and Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, to argue that a Taxing Officer must give specific reasons showing how discretion was exercised, including complexity, volume of work, importance, and labour involved, and not rely on general statements. 31.Further, that the Taxing Officer failed to demonstrate with specificity why the matter was complex and instead awarded instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000/=, which the Client/ Applicant considers excessive. The Client/Applicant further submitted that the reasons given did not meet the threshold of reasoned discretion required by the cited authorities. 32.On service fees, the Client/Applicant submitted that Items 10 and 17 were wrongly taxed above the statutory cap of Kshs. 1,400/=, under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, while attendances for mentions were also improperly allowed contrary to Schedule 6A(7). The client/ Applicant also maintained that the Taxing Officer disregarded the applicable scales. 33.On the issue of the 50% increment on the taxed bill, the Client/Applicant argues that the Taxing Officer misapplied Schedule 6 Part B of the Advocates Remuneration Order. Further, that the 50% uplift is only applicable where Party and Party Costs have been taxed, not in an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs. Reliance was placed in the case of Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] eKLR, where the Court held that the 50% increase applies only after Party and Party costs have been determined. 34.Further reliance is placed in the case of Tom Ojienda & Associates Advocates v County Government of Narok (Misc. Application E608 of 2019) eKLR, where the Court held that it is an error in principle to apply the 50% increment directly in an Advocate–Client bill of Costs, without prior taxation of Party and Party costs. Therefore, the Client/Applicant submitted that the Taxing Officer misdirected herself both in law and principle in applying the 50% increment, thereby inflating the final award. 35.In conclusion, the Client/Applicant urged the Court to find and hold that the Taxing Officer committed errors of law and principle, which warrants interference by setting aside the taxation of 24th April 2025, by either re-assessing the said Bill of Costs or remitting it for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer. 36.In opposition to the instant Reference the Advocate Respondent filed its written submissions, and fundamentally defended the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 24th April 2025, which taxed the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs at Kshs. 5,374,703/40/=. The Advocate/Respondent submitted that the instant Reference is unmeritorious, as it fails to demonstrate any error of principle or law in the taxation process and instead merely expresses dissatisfaction with the quantum awarded. 37.At the outset, the Advocate/Respondent frames the dispute as one concerning whether the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, in taxing the Bill arising from professional services rendered in Narok Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2019 (formerly Nairobi HCCP No. 323 of 2019), a matter involving injunctive and conservatory reliefs relating to alleged evictions in Narok County Group ranches. Further, that the Advocate acted for the Client/Applicant for nearly four years before being discharged and subsequently filed the Bill of Costs after non-payment of fees. 38.The Advocate/Respondent relied on well-established principles Governing interference with taxation, particularly the restraint of courts unless there is an error of principle. Reliance was placed on the foundational case of Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] EA 162, which sets out the guiding principles that costs must be fair, reasonable, and not oppressive, while also ensuring access to justice. The Advocate/ Respondent further cited the case of First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others (2002) EA 64 and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates (Petition No. E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR), to reinforce that taxation is a discretionary exercise that should not be interfered with unless exercised on wrong principles. 39.On instruction fees, the Advocate/ Respondent argued that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion under Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, where the value of subject matter is not ascertainable. Reliance is placed heavily in the case of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, which establishes that where value cannot be determined from pleadings, the Taxing Officer must consider factors such as the nature and importance of the matter, complexity, interest of parties, and conduct of proceedings. The Advocate further relies on Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, which cautions that taxation is not a mathematical exercise, but a matter of judicial discretion guided by reason and principle. 40.The Advocate/Respondent cited the case of Jeremiah Muku vs Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & Another [2015] eKLR, reiterating that instruction fees are not determined solely by value of subject matter but by a combination of factors including labour, complexity, and responsibility. Additionally, in the case of Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission v Chief Justice of Kenya & Another [2014] eKLR, is relied upon for the proposition that taxation involves a balancing exercise of competing considerations. 41.On the alleged error in increasing instruction fees by 50%, the Advocate/ Respondent relied on Part B of Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which provides for a mandatory 50% increase in Advocate–Client taxation. The Advocate/ Respondent supports this interpretation with Kinyua Muyaa Co Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority & Others (2017) eKLR, Dennis KN Magare & Another v Armajit Singh Gahir & Others (2021) eKLR, and National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates (2021) eKLR, all of which affirm that the 50% uplift applies in Advocate–Client bills of Costs, after taxation under Part A, and does not require prior Party and Party taxation. 42.The Advocate/ Respondent further relied on the case of Havi & Company Advocates v Purma Holdings Ltd & 2 Others [2024] KEHC 3690 (KLR), to demonstrate judicial recognition that instruction fees may properly be enhanced where complexity and responsibility justify it. 43.On procedural objections such as service fees and attendances, the Advocate/ Respondent maintained that the Taxing Officer correctly applied Schedule 6A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, including permissible mileage-based service charges and attendance fees capped but adjustable depending on circumstances such as travel distance and nature of attendances. 44.On the complaint regarding the 50% uplift being improperly applied, the Advocate invoked the principle that appellate courts (on taxation References) cannot entertain issues not raised before the Taxing Officer, relying on the case of Showcase Property Limited v Mugambi & Co. Advocates [2020] eklr and Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2) [2006] 1 EA 5. These authorities emphasize that a Reference cannot introduce new issues not canvassed at taxation. 45.Finally, the Advocate/Respondent urged the Court to apply the principle that costs follow the event and dismiss the Reference with costs, maintaining that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion, considered relevant factors, and arrived at a fair and reasonable taxation consistent with established legal principles. 46.In conclusion, the Advocate’s position is that the Taxing Officer’s decision was legally sound, properly reasoned, and consistent with binding and persuasive authorities, including Premchand Raichand Ltd, Joreth Ltd, Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999), and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates, and therefore the Reference lacks merit and should be dismissed in its entirety. 47.Having carefully considered the instant Chamber Summons Reference, dated 8th May 2025, the Supporting Affidavit, the Replying Affidavit, and the rival submissions together with the authorities cited thereon, the Court finds the issues for determination are;i.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in the assessment and taxation of Instruction Fees in Item 1 of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023.ii.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in allowing items relating to service fees and attendances contrary to the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014.iii.Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and principle in applying the 50% increase under Part B of Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014.iv.Whether the Court should interfere with the Taxing Officer’s discretion and set aside or remit the taxation for fresh assessment.v.Who should bear the costs of this reference. 48.On whether the Court should interfere with the Taxing Officer’s discretion. It is now settled law that taxation of costs is a matter of judicial discretion, exercised by the Taxing Officer, and a court on a Reference will not readily interfere unless it is demonstrated that the Taxing Officer, acted on a wrong principle or the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice. 49.The guiding principles were firmly established in the case of Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Another [1972] EA 162, where Spry V-P held that costs must not be allowed to rise to such a level as to deny access to justice, but must fairly compensate a successful party. The same principles were reiterated in the case of First American Bank of Kenya v Shah & Others (2002) EA 64. 50.The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates (Petition No. E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR), reaffirmed that interference with taxation is only justified where the Taxing Officer has misdirected himself in principle or considered irrelevant factors. 51.Similarly, in the case of Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999), the Court emphasized judicial restraint, noting that taxation is a specialized function best left to taxing officers unless clear error is demonstrated. 52.From these authorities, it is clear that this Court must exercise restraint and only intervene where the threshold for interference is met. 53.On whether the Taxing Officer erred in taxing Instruction Fees, the central complaint by the Client/Applicant is that the instruction fee of Kshs. 3,000,000/= (as taxed) was excessive and that the matter was neither complex nor novel. 54.The applicable legal framework is well-settled. In the case of Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92, the Court of Appeal held that:“The value of the subject matter ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, but where it is not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer is entitled to exercise discretion by considering, inter alia, the nature and importance of the matter, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings, and all relevant circumstances.” 55.The same position was restated in Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others [2006] eKLR, where the Court emphasized that taxation is not a mathematical exercise but an evaluative one based on judicial discretion guided by principle. Further, in the case of Jeremiah Muku v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & Another [2015] eKLR, the Court held that instruction fees, are not solely dependent on the value of the subject matter but on a combination of factors, including complexity, labour, responsibility, and importance of the matter. 56.In the present case, the record shows that the Taxing Officer considered the following factors: The constitutional nature of the Petition involving alleged violations of fundamental rights; the duration of representation spanning approximately four years; the multiplicity of parties, and complexity of issues concerning evictions and public land; and the labour, responsibility, and professional input required. 57.These considerations are consistent with the principles in the case of Joreth Ltd v Kigano (supra) and Republic v Minister for Agriculture (supra). Further, the Court in the case of Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission v Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya & Another [2014] eKLR also cautioned that taxation involves a balancing exercise of competing considerations and that no precise formula exists. 58.Accordingly, the Client/ Applicant has not demonstrated that the Taxing Officer failed to consider relevant factors or took into account irrelevant ones. Mere dissatisfaction with the amount awarded does not constitute a ground for interference. 59.On Whether service fees and attendances were wrongly taxed, the client/Applicant contended and submitted that items relating to service and attendances were taxed above statutory limits. The court has considered Schedule 6A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014, which provides for service fees and attendances, including mileage-based adjustments where services are rendered beyond the standard radius. 60.The Advocate/ Respondent correctly relied on Schedule 6A(9), which allows additional reasonable charges depending on distance beyond the prescribed limit. The Court accepts the reasoning that where service is effected between Nairobi and Narok, travel and logistical expenses may justify enhanced fees. In the case of Lucy Waithera & 2 Others v Edwin Njagi T/A E.K. Njagi & Co. Advocates [2017] eKLR, the Court held that a Taxing Officer exercises discretion judicially and may vary items justified by circumstances, provided reasons are given. 61.Similarly, in Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna (supra), it was emphasized that taxation must reflect actual work done and not be reduced to rigid arithmetic application of caps. The Client/ Applicant did not avail evidence that the taxing master failed to consider the actual work done, complexity, and duration taken to conclude the matter. 62.On attendances, Schedule 6A (7) provides a ceiling, but does not remove discretion to assess reasonable fees depending on complexity and nature of attendances. The Court is therefore satisfied that no legal misdirection has been demonstrated. 63.On whether the 50% increase was properly applied, the Client/Applicant challenges the application of the 50% increase under Part B of Schedule VI, and argued that the same applies only where Party and Party costs have first been taxed. However, the legal position is settled to the contrary, that under Part B of Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, it provides that in Advocate–Client taxation, the fees under Part A are increased by 50%. 64.In the case of Kinyua Muyaa Co Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority & Others (2017) eKLR, the Court held that the 50% increase is applicable in Advocate–Client Bills of costs, irrespective of prior Party and Party taxation. The same position was affirmed in the case of Dennis KN Magare & Another v Armajit Singh Gahir & Others [2021] eKLR, where the Court held that the Taxing Officer properly applied the 50% increment as mandated by the Rules. 65.Further, in the case of National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates (2021) eKLR, the Court clarified that the language of Schedule VI(B) is mandatory and does not require prior taxation of party and party costs. 66.The Court has noted the principle in the case of Showcase Property Limited v Mugambi & Co. Advocates [2020] eKLR, and Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2) [2006] 1 EA 5, wherein it was held that issues not raised before the Taxing Officer cannot properly be introduced at the Reference stage. In the instant case, the Taxing Officer applied the statutory provision correctly. This court finds and holds that no error of principle has been demonstrated. 67.On Whether this Court should interfere with taxation, from the foregoing analysis, the Court finds and holds that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion under Schedule VI and VI A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014. 68.The applicable principles in the cases of Joreth Ltd v Kigano, Premchand Raichand, and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot (supra), were applied correctly, and this court finds no reasons to interfere with the taxing officer’s discretion, as no evidence has been placed before this Court to demonstrate misdirection in principle or consideration of irrelevant factors. Accordingly, this court finds and holds that the threshold for interference has not been met. 69.Having carefully considered the pleadings herein, the issues in totality, and the rival written submission, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Taxing Officer properly exercised his discretion in taxing the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023, as he did, and that no error of law or principle has been demonstrated to warrant interference, of the said finding or Ruling of the taxing officer. 70.Consequently, the Court finds and holds that;i.The Client’s/Applicant’s Chamber Summons Application or Reference dated 8th May 2025, is not merited, and the same is hereby dismissed entirely.ii.The Taxation Ruling delivered on 24th April 2025, is upheld in its entirety. The Advocate/Respondent shall have costs of this Reference.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAROK, THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.L. GACHERUJUDGE.Delivered online in the presence of.Elijah Meyoki… Court AssistantMs. Lyona H/B for Mr. Maina Ngaruiya for the Client/ Applicant.Mr. Otieno H/B for Mr. Kere for the Advocate/ Respondent.L. GACHERUJUDGE.14th May 2026.