https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3477

 ***REPUBLIC OF KENYA*** ***IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK*** ***ELCL MISC. APP. NO. E004 OF 2023*** ***NAROK COUNTY GOVERNMENT ………….CLIENT/APPLICANT*** ***VERSUS*** ***KEMBOY LAW ADVOCATES ………ADVOCATE/RESPONDENT*** ***ARISING FROM*** ***REPUBLIC OF KENYA*** ***IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK*** ***ELC SUIT NO. 181 OF 2017*** ***MAU RESORT LIMITED…..……………………………………PLAINTIFF -VERSUS*** ***NAROK COUNTY GOVERNMENT………………………...DEFENDANT*** ***RULING*** 1. This matter for determination is the Chamber Summons Application/Reference dated ***12th May 2025,*** brought by the Client/Applicant, ***Narok County Government***, pursuant to ***Paragraph 11(2)*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order), 2014***. The Client/Applicant seeks to challenge the taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April 2025,*** by ***Hon. Daniel Ngayo (SRM)*** (Taxing Officer) in respect of an ***Advocate Client Bill of Costs,*** filed by the Advocate/ Respondent, ***Kemboy Law Advocates, in Narok ELC Case No. 181 of 2017,*** ***Mau Resort Limited v Narok County Government.*** 2. The impugned taxation arose from professional services rendered by the ***Advocate/Respondent*** in the said matter, whereupon the ***Advocate/Respondent*** filed an ***Advocate–Client Bill of Costs*** dated ***4th July 2023.*** Upon taxation, the Taxing Officer assessed the Bill of Costs at **Kshs. *9,301,866/00*** from the sum of ***Kshs. 11,042,61/00,*** as claimed. 3. The Client/Applicant is aggrieved by the said decision and contended that the said taxation was ***erroneous, excessive***, and founded on ***misapplication of the applicable law*** and ***principles governing taxation*** of costs. 4. The Client/Applicant challenges, the assessment of ***instruction fees*** at ***Kshs. 5,000,000/00***, the alleged failure by the Taxing Officer to properly apply ***Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration Order***), and the alleged failure to consider its submissions. It further contended that the Taxing Officer improperly applied ***a 50% increase,*** and failed to render sufficient reasons for the taxation, thereby occasioning prejudice. 5. The Advocate/Respondent opposes the instant Application/Reference and has raised a ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** dated ***20th May 2025***, contending that the Reference is incompetent for having been filed outside the timelines prescribed under ***Paragraph 11*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order).*** The Advocate/ Respondent further maintains that the Taxing Officer ***properly exercised discretion***, applied the correct legal principles, and arrived at a fair and justified taxation. 6. The Application/Reference is further supported by a Replying Affidavit of ***John Mayian Tuya***, the County Secretary sworn on ***31st December 2025,*** and urged the Court not to interfere with the discretion of the Taxing Officer. 7. The Client/Applicant, ***Narok County Government***, filed the present Chamber Summons Reference pursuant to ***paragraph 11(2)*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order), 2014***, seeking to challenge the taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April 2025,*** by ***Hon. Daniel Ngayo***. The dispute arises from an ***Advocate–Client Bill of Costs*** dated ***4thJuly 2023,*** filed by ***Kemboy Law Advocates*** in ***ELC Case No. 181 of 2017: Mau Resort Limited v Narok County Government***. 8. The Client/Applicant is dissatisfied with the taxation whereby the Taxing Officer assessed the ***Advocate–Client Bill of Costs*** ***at Kshs. 9,301,866/00*** from the sum of ***Kshs. 11,042,61/00,*** originally claimed. The Client/Applicant contends that the decision was arrived at in error and seeks that the ruling be ***set aside*** and that the ***Bill of Costs*** be taxed afresh before a different Taxing Officer other than ***Hon. Daniel Ngayo***. The Client/ Applicant further prays for the costs of the Reference/ Application. 9. The grounds in support of the Reference/ Application are that the Taxing Officer ***misapplied*** and ***disregarded*** the provisions of ***Schedule 6*** of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order,*** in assessing the costs. It is further contended that the amounts awarded were ***manifestly excessive,*** and not anchored on the applicable legal principles governing taxation of ***Advocate–Client bills*** of Costs. The Client/ Applicant faults the Taxing Officer for allegedly failing to consider its submissions and response to the Bill of Costs, thereby arriving at an unfair determination. 10. A central complaint relates to ***instruction fees***, which was assessed at ***Kshs. 5,000,000/00.*** The Client/ Applicant argues that this figure was not ***properly justified***, was based on a ***misapplication of the applicable*** formula under the ***Remuneration Order,*** and amounted to an ***exercise of discretion*** that was ***neither reasonable*** nor in ***accordance with law***. 11. Further, that the Taxing Officer wrongly treated other items in the ***Bill of Costs*** as having been drawn to scale without providing sufficient reasoning, and also applied ***a 50% increase*** contrary to established legal principles and practice. 12. The Client/ Applicant also states that although it requested for reasons for the taxation ruling pursuant to ***paragraph 11(2)*** of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order***, such reasons had not been furnished at the time of filing the instant Reference, thereby hampering its ability to fully challenge the decision. 13. In the supporting affidavit sworn by ***John Mayiani Tuya***, the ***County Secretary of Narok County Government***, these averments are reiterated. The deponent confirms that the **Advocate/Respondent** had filed a ***Bill of Costs*** seeking ***Kshs. 11,042,616/00***, which was taxed down to ***Kshs. 9,301,866/00.*** He further deposes that the Client/ Applicant duly requested for certified copies of the ruling and reasons for taxation, but only the ruling was availed. He maintains that the Taxing Officer misapplied ***Schedule 6*** of the ***Advocates' Remuneration Orde;*** failed to properly consider the Client/ Applicant’s submissions, and arrived at an excessive award that is not justified in law. 14. It is the Client/ Applicant’s position that the impugned taxation has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and, unless it is ***set aside***, it will occasion prejudice to the Applicant. Consequently, the Client/ Applicant urges the Court to allow the Chamber Summons Application; set aside the taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April 2025,*** and order a fresh taxation of the ***Advocate–Client Bill of Costs*** before a different Taxing Officer in the interest of fairness and justice. 15. The Advocate/Respondent, ***Kemboy Law Advocates***, filed a ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** dated ***20th May 2025,*** challenging the competency of the Chamber Summons Reference/ Application dated ***12th May 2025***, as filed by the Client/Applicant). 16. The Advocate/ Respondent contends that the Reference/Application is fatally defective as it was filed outside the timelines expressly provided under ***Paragraph 11(2)*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration) Order***. On that basis, it is argued that the application is incompetent in law and amounts to an abuse of the court process. The Advocate/ Respondent further asserts that, by reason of the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory timelines, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or determine the application. 17. Accordingly, the Advocate/Respondent prays that the Chamber Summons Reference/ Application dated 12th May 2025 be struck out or dismissed ***in limine*** with costs. 18. The Advocate/Respondent, ***Kemboy Law Advocates***, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by ***Julius K. Kemboy*** on ***31st December 2025,*** opposes the Client/Applicant’s Chamber Summons Reference/ Application dated ***12th May 2025,*** which seeks to set aside the taxing officer’s taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April 2025,*** and have the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs retaxed before another Taxing Officer. 19. The deponent, the Senior Partner in the Law Firm ***handling Narok ELC Suit No. 181 of 2017,*** confirms personal conduct of the matter on behalf of the ***Client/Applicant***. He contends that the Reference/ Application is ***frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court process***, and a baseless attempt to avoid ***legitimate payment*** of professional fees properly earned. 20. He maintains that the ***Taxing Officer*** correctly exercised discretion under ***Schedule 6*** of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order*** in assessing the ***instruction fees*** at ***Kshs. 5,000,000/00***, taking into account the ***complexity, nature, duration (approximately three years***), and importance of the matter. He further argues that where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer is empowered to exercise discretion guided by relevant factors such as the nature of the dispute, interest of the parties, and labour involved. 21. The Advocate/Respondent further asserts that the taxation was consistent with legal principles affirmed by superior courts, including the Supreme Court decision in ***Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co.*** ***Advocates***, which recognizes the Taxing Officer’s discretion in appropriate circumstances. He emphasizes that ***Schedule 6*** does not impose rigid limits but allows reasonable assessment based on the work done and the complexity of the matter. 22. On the complaint that the other items were not properly justified, the deponent states that the ***Taxing Officer*** expressly found that all items were drawn to scale and were not exorbitant, having considered the nature and duration of the matter as well as professional effort involved. He therefore denies any failure to give reasons or consider submissions. 23. Regarding the ***50% increase***, the Advocate/Respondent argues that the ***Taxing Officer*** properly applied ***Part B of Schedule 6*** of the ***Advocates' Remuneration Order***, which mandates a 50% increase on Advocate–Client Bill of costs. He supports this position with authorities including ***Kinyua Muyaa & Co. Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority, Dennis Magare v Armajit Singh Gahir, National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates, and Havi & Co. Advocates v Purma Holdings Ltd,*** all of which affirm the propriety and mandatory nature of the 50% uplift in Advocate–Client taxation. 24. Further, that the Client/Applicant cannot challenge the ***50% increase*** at this stage as it was not specifically raised before the Taxing Officer, and that the Court on Reference cannot entertain new issues not previously placed before the taxing forum. 25. In conclusion, the Advocate/ Respondent maintains that the Taxing Officer acted within jurisdiction, correctly applied the law, and exercised discretion properly. The Advocate/Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the ***Client/Applicant’s Reference*** with costs on the basis that it lacks merit and fails to disclose any error in principle warranting interference with the taxation ruling. 26. The Reference /Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Client/Applicant filed its written submissions through ***Maina Ngaruiya & Co Advocates***, cited various decided cases and urged the Court to allow its Reference. The Advocate/ Respondent filed its submissions through ***Kemboy Law Advocates***, cited various authorities and provisions of Law, and urged the Court to dismiss the instant Reference. 27. In its submissions, the Client/Applicant, Narok County Government, maintained that the Preliminary Objection lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs. The Applicant further submitted that it had properly invoked ***Paragraph 11(1) and (2***) of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order), 2014,*** after being dissatisfied with the taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April 2025*** by the Taxing Officer. That, upon receiving the ruling, the Client/Applicant promptly issued a ***Notice of*** Objection on ***30th April 2025,*** within the statutory period of ***14 days*** and also requested written reasons for taxation and a certified copy of the ruling. 28. The Client/ Applicant argued that although it sought reasons from the Taxing Officer, the same were not supplied, compelling it to rely on the ruling uploaded on the Judiciary Case Tracking System in filing the present Reference. Therefore, any delay or procedural difficulty in obtaining reasons could not be attributed to the Client/ Applicant and should not defeat its right to be heard on the merits. Reliance was placed on the principle that a litigant should not suffer prejudice due to court administrative shortcomings. 29. On the issue of ***jurisdiction and competence*** raised in the Preliminary Objection, the Client/ Applicant submitted that the Reference was properly filed within the timelines prescribed under ***Paragraph 11*** of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order,*** and it disclosed a competent cause of action. 30. The client/Applicant relied on the decision in the case *of* ***D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Joseph Muchina & Another (1980) eKLR,*** where the Court of Appeal held that courts should not summarily terminate proceedings unless they are plainly hopeless, emphasizing the need to sustain rather than strike out suits where possible. 31. In support of the ***substantive challenge*** on taxation, the Client/ Applicant reiterated that the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees at ***Kshs. 5,000,000/00*** without sufficiently demonstrating the basis of calculation, contrary to the principles in the case of ***Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92*,** which requires consideration of pleadings, judgment, settlement, and, where value not ascertainable, proper exercise of discretion guided by relevant factors. 32. Further reliance was placed on 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,***where the courts emphasized that a Taxing Officer must clearly demonstrate the basis of exercising discretion, including complexity, care, labour, importance of the matter, and time spent, and avoid generalizations. 33. The Client/ Applicant also cited these cases; ***Keziah Gathoni Supeyo v Yano t/a Yano & Co. Advocates [2019] eKLR and Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (1972 EA 162),*** to underscore the ***principles of fairness in taxation***, including that costs should ***neither be oppressive nor so low*** as to deny ***fair remuneration,*** and that ***discretion must be exercised judicially***. 34. On the issue of the ***50% increase***, the Client/ Applicant strongly contested its application in the ***Advocate Client Bill of Costs***, arguing that it is only applicable where ***Party and Party Costs*** have been taxed. Reliance was placed on the case of ***Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd (2014) eKLR and Tom Ojienda & Associates Advocates v County Government of Narok (Misc. Application E608 of 2019) eKLR,*** where the courts held that the ***50%*** uplift under ***Part B*** of ***Schedule VI*** applies only after taxation of ***Party and Party Costs*** and not independently in Advocate–Client bills of Costs. 35. The Client/ Applicant further challenged the finding that all other items were drawn to scale, arguing that several items, such as ***attendances, court appearances, service fees, and registry services***, were excessive and contrary to the prescribed schedule rates under the ***Advocates Remuneration Order.*** 36. In conclusion, the Client/ Applicant submitted that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself in law and principle, failed to properly apply ***Schedule 6*** of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order***, and exercised discretion improperly. It urged the Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objection and allow the Reference to be heard on its merits, or in the alternative, set aside the taxation and remit the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before another Taxing Officer. 37. The Advocate/Respondent’s submissions, both in opposition to the Client’s Chamber Summons Reference and in support of the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection,*** present a unified position challenging the competency and merits of the Client’s attempt to overturn the taxation ruling delivered on ***24th April, 2025.*** 38. On the merits, the Advocate/Respondent submits that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in taxing the ***Advocate–Client Bill of Costs*** at ***Kshs. 9,301,866/00,*** and later ***Kshs. 22,265,04/50,*** in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. It is argued that taxation is inherently discretionary and an appellate court will only interfere where the taxing officer has acted on a wrong principle, taken into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to consider relevant ones. Reliance is placed on the classic formulation in ***Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162*,** where Spry V.P. emphasized that costs must be fair to both parties and should not be excessive so as to impede access to justice. 39. The Advocate/Respondent further relies on **First American Bank of Kenya v Shah & Others (2002) EA 64 and Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92** for the proposition that where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from pleadings, the taxing officer must exercise discretion guided by factors such as the nature and importance of the matter, its complexity, the time expended, and the interest of the parties. This principle is reinforced by the Supreme Court in ***Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates (Petition No. E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR),*** which affirmed that instruction fees may be assessed based on all relevant circumstances where valuation is not apparent. 40. The submissions emphasize that instruction fees properly included consideration of the complexity of the ELC matter (Narok ELC Suit No. 181 of 2017), which involved allegations of trespass and demolition of structures, requiring prolonged engagement over approximately three years. Reliance is also placed on ***Jeremiah Muku v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & Another [2015] eKLR****,* where the Court held that instruction fees are not based solely on the value of the subject matter but also on labour, care, complexity, and responsibility involved. Further support is drawn from **Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission v Chief Justice of Kenya & Another [2014] eKLR,** which reiterated that taxation is not a mathematical exercise but an evaluative process requiring the taxing officer to balance competing considerations. 41. On the ***50% increase*** in fees, the ***Advocate/Respondent*** relies on Paragraph 6B of the ***Advocates Remuneration Order***, arguing that in ***Advocate–Client Bills of Costs***, the taxed amount under Part A is properly increased by 50%. This position is supported by ***Kinyua Muyaa & Co Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority (2017) eKLR***, where the Court held that the increase by 50% applies after assessment under Schedule VI. Similarly, ***Dennis KN Magare & Another v Armajit Singh Gahir & Others [2021] eKLR and National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates [2021] eKLR*** are cited to affirm that the taxing officer properly applies the statutory uplift without requiring prior assessment of party-and-party costs. 42. On procedural competence, the Advocate/Respondent’s ***Preliminary Objection*** is grounded on ***Paragraph 11*** of the ***Advocates' Remuneration Order.*** It is argued that the Client’s Reference was filed out of time and without leave, rendering it incompetent and depriving the Court of jurisdiction. The submissions rely on the principle in ***Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA* *696,*** defining a ***Preliminary Objection*** as a pure point of law capable of disposing of a matter. 43. Strict adherence to the procedural timelines under Paragraph 11 is reinforced by authorities such as ***Aoro v Were (2022) eKLR, Multiline Motors (Kenya) Ltd v Migori County Government (2016) eKLR, and Muturi Mwangi & Associates v Mwangi [2024] KEELC 1604 (KLR),*** all emphasizing that failure to comply with the 14-day timeline or obtain an extension of time under Paragraph 11(4) is fatal to a reference. The Advocate further relies on ***Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2) [2006] 1 EA 5 and Showcase Property Ltd v Mugambi & Co Advocates [2020] Eklr,*** for the principle that issues not raised before the taxing officer cannot be introduced at the reference stage. 44. In conclusion, the Advocate/Respondent maintains that the Taxing Officer acted within jurisdiction, properly applied the ***Advocate's Remuneration Order,*** and exercised discretion judiciously. It urged that both the ***Reference*** and the ***Preliminary Objection*** be resolved in favour of the Advocate/Respondent, with the Reference being dismissed for incompetence and lack of merit, and costs awarded to the Advocate. 45. Having carefully considered the pleadings, Affidavits, submissions, and authorities cited, the Court finds the following issues arise for determination: 46. ***Whether the Chamber Summons Reference is incompetent for having been filed outside the timelines provided under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration Order);*** 47. ***Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in the taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs dated 4th July 2023;*** 48. ***Whether the instruction fees as assessed at Kshs. 5,000,000.00 were excessive or based on a misapplication of the law;*** 49. ***Whether the application of the 50% increase under the Advocates (Remuneration Order) was proper in law;*** 50. ***Whether the Taxing Officer failed to give adequate reasons or failed to consider relevant submissions; and*** 51. **What orders should issue.** **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. **Whether the Reference is incompetent for being time-barred** 2. The Advocate/ Respondent raises a ***Preliminary Objection*** founded on ***Paragraph 11*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order),*** contending that the Reference was filed outside the stipulated 14 days and without leave of the Court. 3. A Preliminary Objection, as was famously stated in ***Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd* (1969) EA 696**, consists of a pure point of law which is capable of disposing of the suit. However, where facts are contested—such as whether time began to run, whether reasons were supplied, or whether there was compliance with Paragraph 11(2)—such matters cannot properly be the subject of a preliminary objection. 1. ***Paragraph 11(1) and (2)*** of the ***Advocates (Remuneration Order***) requires a party aggrieved by taxation to first request reasons and thereafter file a Reference within the stipulated timelines. The Client/ Applicant has demonstrated, through Affidavit evidence, that it sought reasons which were allegedly not supplied timeously. 2. In ***D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Joseph Muchina & Another* (1980) eKLR**, the Court of Appeal held that a suit should not be struck out unless it is so hopeless that it cannot be salvaged. Similarly, in ***Aoro v Were* (2022) eKLR and *Muturi Mwangi & Associates v Mwangi* [2024] KEELC 1604 (KLR),** courts have emphasized strict compliance with Paragraph 11 timelines but also recognized that procedural fairness must be considered where reasons are not supplied. 3. In the present case, the issue of timeliness is intertwined with the question of whether reasons were supplied, which is a factual inquiry unsuitable for resolution as a pure Preliminary Objection. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Preliminary Objection lacks merit and is dismissed. 4. **Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle** 5. It is now well settled that taxation is a matter of judicial discretion and an appellate court will only interfere where it is shown that the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle, misapprehended the law, or awarded an amount that is manifestly excessive or low. 6. In ***Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd* (1972) EA 162,** Spry V.P. stated that costs must not be so high as to impede access to justice, nor so low as to undervalue professional services. Further, in ***First American Bank of Kenya v Shah & Others* (2002) EA 64,** the Court held that interference is only justified where there is an error in principle. 7. The guiding principles for taxation where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable were set out in ***Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates* (2002) 1 EA 92**, where the Court held that the Taxing Officer must consider pleadings, judgment, settlement, and relevant factors, including complexity, labour, and importance of the matter. 8. From the record, the Taxing Officer considered the nature of the matter, the duration of representation, and the work done. There is no clear demonstration that irrelevant factors were considered or that relevant factors were ignored. The Court therefore finds no sufficient basis to disturb the exercise of discretion on this ground. 9. **Whether instruction fees were excessive or improperly assessed** 10. The Client/ Applicant contests the instruction fees of ***Kshs. 5,000,00/.00*** as excessive and not properly justified. Instruction fees are not strictly mathematical. In ***Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Co. Advocates* (Supreme Court Petition No. E011 of 2023) [2024] KESC 44 (KLR),** the Supreme Court reaffirmed that where the value of the subject matter is not discernible, the Taxing Officer is entitled to exercise discretion based on relevant factors. 11. Similarly, in ***Jeremiah Muku v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & Another* [2015] eKLR**, the Court held that instruction fees depend on complexity, responsibility, time spent, and importance of the matter. 12. The present matter involved protracted litigation spanning approximately three years and touching on substantial public interest issues involving land use and development within Narok County. In the absence of a demonstrated misdirection, the Court is not persuaded that the Taxing Officer acted on the wrong principle. 13. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for interference with the assessed instruction fees. 14. **Whether the 50% increase was properly applied** 15. The Client/Applicant contends that the 50% increase was improperly applied in an Advocate–Client bill. Paragraph 6B of the Advocates (Remuneration Order) provides for the enhancement of fees in Advocate–Client taxation. The Court of Appeal in ***Kinyua Muyaa & Co. Advocates v Kenya Ports Authority* (2017) eKLR and *National Bank of Kenya v Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates* [2021] eKLR** affirmed that the 50% uplift is applicable as part of Advocate–Client costs once taxation is undertaken. 16. The Advocate/ Respondent has demonstrated that the Taxing Officer applied the applicable provision of the Remuneration Order. The Court finds no error of law in the application of the 50% increase. 17. **Whether reasons were adequately given** 18. The Client/Applicant alleges failure by the Taxing Officer to give reasons. It is trite that a Taxing Officer must provide sufficient reasons to enable a party to challenge taxation effectively. 19. However, reasons need not be elaborate. In the ***Republic v Minister for Agriculture & 2 Others Ex parte Samuel Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others* [2006] eKLR,** the Court held that the reasons must be discernible from the ruling and record. In the present case, the ruling outlines the factors considered in arriving at the taxation. The Court is satisfied that sufficient reasons were provided. 20. From the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that: 21. ***The Preliminary Objection is without merit and is hereby dismissed;*** 22. ***The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any error of principle warranting interference with the Taxing Officer’s discretion;*** 23. ***The taxation of the Advocate–Client Bill of Costs was conducted in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration Order) and established legal principles.*** 24. Consequently, the Chamber Summons Application dated 12th May, 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Advocate/Respondent. ***It is so ordered.*** **Dated, signed, and delivered at Narok, this 14th day of May, 2026** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge.*** ***14th May 2026.*** ***Delivered online in the presence of.*** ***Elijah Meyoki - Court Assistant.*** ***N/A for the Appellant/Applicant*** ***N/A for the Respondents*** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge.***