https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4692

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELCLMISC NO. E076 OF 2026** **RENE & HANS ADVOCATES LLP....…….............…….…………...APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **DIM AGENCIES LIMITED….……….……...............……………...RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before this court for determination is the chamber summons dated 9th March 2026, filed by the applicant and it is expressed to be brought under **Paragraph 11** of the **Advocates Remuneration Order** seeking for the following orders:- 2. ***Spent.*** 3. ***The ruling and reasons for taxation delivered on 3rd March, 2026 by the taxing master of Environment and Land Court in Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Application No E375 of 2025, Rene & Hans Advocates LLP v Dim Agencies Limited be and are hereby set aside.*** 4. ***This honourable court be pleased to direct that the computation of instruction fees on the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 2nd December, 2025 be done based on the value of Kshs.410,000,000.00 being the value of the Subject Matter (Property Land Reference Number 9042617) as set out in the*** ***valuation report dated 22nd June 2022 prepared by a qualified valuer (Edwin Muturi BA (Land Economics) MISK. RV.) and produced into evidence in ELC Case No E055 of 2021 vide the plaintiff’s supplementary list of documents dated 6th June, 2022.*** 5. ***This honourable court be pleased to reassess and or remit the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 2nd December, 2025 for taxation before a different taxing master with appropriate directions on computation of Instruction Fees.*** 6. ***Costs of this reference be provided for.*** 1. The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of Isaac Rene, the applicant sworn on even date. He deposed that the reference filed herewith challenges the ruling and reasons for taxation delivered on 3rd March, 2026 by the taxing officer in miscellaneous application No E375 of 2025, Rene & Hans Advocates LLP v Dim Agencies Limited. 2. The applicant deposed that the taxing master erred in law and fact, in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs dated 2nd December 2025 based on the wrong principle in the exercise of his discretion in failing to find and hold that the subject matter of ELC case no. E055 of 2021, Dim Agencies Limited v Kenya Airports Authority was LR no. 9042/617. 3. That the taxing master erred in law and fact, in failing to find and hold that ELC Case No E055 of 2021 was a suit about recovery of land, the same evidenced by a declaration sought in prayer (a) of the plaint, to the effect that the plaintiff is the bona fide registered owner of LR no. 9042/617. 4. Further, that the taxing master erred in law and fact, in assessing instruction fees based on an alleged subject matter of Kshs.20,000,000/- which was obiter dictum and therefore was not a determination of the court as opposed to computing the subject matter based on Kshs.410,000,000/- which is the value of the subject matter. The applicant relied on a valuation report dated 22nd June, 2022 which was produced as evidence in ELC Case No E055 of 2021 vide the plaintiff’s supplementary list of documents dated 6th June, 2022. 5. The applicant deposed that the taxing master failed to consider their written submissions dated 5th December, 2025 and the applicant’s further affidavit sworn on 12th February, 2026 thereby arriving at an erroneous decision. 6. The application was opposed by Ashok Labhshanker Doshi, the director of the respondent vide the replying affidavit in response to the instant application on 27th April, 2026. He deposed that they wholly support the ruling of the taxing officer together with the reasons thereto and particularly on the question of Item 1 on instruction fees. The respondent deposed that once judgment has been entered, recourse will not be had in the pleadings since judgment determines conclusively the value of the subject matter as a claim and no matter how pleaded, gets its true value as adjudged by the court. 7. As advised further by their advocates on record, since the trial judge made a finding in the judgment at paragraph 227, on the award on damages in favour of the plaintiff, the taxing officer correctly based the value of the subject matter for purposes of computing instruction fees on the award of Kshs.20,000,000/= and not the value of the suit property as per the valuation report dated 22nd June, 2022. Thus, the respondent contends that the taxing officer did not err in principle and applied the correct principles in determining the value of the subject matter for purposes of calculating the instructions fees and correctly assessed the bill of costs. 8. This court directed that the application be canvassed through written submissions. None of the parties filed their written submissions. 9. This is a reference filed against the decision of the deputy registrar in ELC misc. application no. E375 of 2025 delivered on 3rd March 2026, in which the taxing master ruled on the advocate-client bill of costs dated 2nd December 2025, arising from ELC Suit No. E055 of 2021, in which the advocate represented the plaintiff in that suit, who is the respondent herein. 10. While considering the chamber summons, I note that the applicant filed a fresh miscellaneous application while the impugned ruling arose from the advocate-client bill of costs contained in miscellaneous application no. E375 of 2025. It would have been proper for the applicant to file the reference within the same file as opposed to filing a completely fresh reference. This aids in avoiding multiplicity of suits and to aid the court have better particulars including the proceedings and any other material contained in the file. 11. As it is, I find the instant chamber summons improperly before this court. The chamber summons dated 9th March 2026 is hereby struck out. The applicant to file the same in misc. application no. E375 of 2025. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY** **THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **HON. MBOGO C.G.** **JUDGE** **22/07/2026.** ***In the presence of:*** *Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant* *Mr. Hans Oichoe for the Applicant* *Mr. Ogango holding brief for Mr. Mutugi for the Respondent*