Mnm Advocates LLP v Pacis Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E173 of 2025) [2026] KEHC-DR 9 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Mnm Advocates LLP v Pacis Insurance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E173 of 2025) [2026] KEHC-DR 9 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

The bill was unopposed, but the taxing officer independently assessed it under the 2014 Advocates Remuneration Order. Because the subject matter value was not discernible and the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution, instruction fees were assessed in discretion at Kshs.50,000. Items for service were taxed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC-DR 9 (KLR)
Parties
Advocate/applicant: MNM Advocates LLP; Client/respondent: Pacis Insurance Company Ltd; Plaintiff: Samuel Lumbasi Makomerei; Defendant: Endmor Steel Millers Limited
Court
High Court (DR)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E173 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Advocate Client Bill of Costs Taxation / Taxation Ruling
Outcome
Bill partially allowed and taxed down.
Judges
["LA Mumassabba"]
Legal Topics
Instruction Fees, Taxing Officer Discretion, Advocate Client Costs, VAT on Costs, Disbursements, Reference Period
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Advocates' Remuneration Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Taxing Officer Discretion Advocate Client Costs VAT on Costs Disbursements +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MNM Advocates LLP

Advocate/applicant

Pacis Insurance Company Ltd

Client/respondent

Samuel Lumbasi Makomerei

Plaintiff

Endmor Steel Millers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Advocate Client Bill of Costs Taxation / Taxation Ruling

  1. 1 What is the proper instruction fee where the subject matter value cannot be discerned from the pleadings or judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the bill was reasonable and properly drawn despite being unopposed.
  3. 3 What items should be taxed off or allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The bill was unopposed, but the taxing officer independently assessed it under the 2014 Advocates Remuneration Order. Because the subject matter value was not discernible and the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution, instruction fees were assessed in discretion at Kshs.50,000. Items for service were taxed off, attendance items were partly reduced, and properly supported attendances and disbursements were allowed. Applying advocate-client enhancement and VAT produced a final taxed amount of Kshs.106,120.

Court Disposition

Bill partially allowed and taxed down.

Orders

  • Instruction fees taxed at Kshs.50,000 with Kshs.15,000 taxed off from the amount claimed.
  • Items 2, 9 and 9-related service charges taxed off.