Humphrey & Company Advocates v Rural Electrification Authority
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that lawyers' fees must be based on the land's value, not the project cost, cutting a Kshs 231 million fee bill to about Kshs 5.4 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in faulting the exercise of discretion by the taxing officer and in interfering with his decision
- 2.Whether the Judge erred in basing the computation of instruction fees on the value of the land without regard to the value of the project
- 3.Whether the Judge erred in taking judicial notice of land values in Garissa rather than relying on a professional valuation
Key legal issues
#Interference with the taxing officer's discretion on a second appeal
The ELC Judge correctly found the taxing officer erred in principle by taking the advocates' project-cost-based figure and arbitrarily deducting Kshs. 50,000,000 without cogent reasons; the Court of Appeal would not disturb that finding.
The taxing officer, despite stating the value of the subject matter was not ascertainable from the pleadings, adopted the advocates' figure based on the project cost and knocked off Kshs. 50,000,000 on a whim. Per Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, discretion must be exercised judiciously with particularised justification. The Judge was therefore entitled to interfere, and the appellant showed no error of law warranting second-appeal interference.
Basis for valuing the subject matter - land versus project
The subject matter of the suit was compensation for 210 acres of land (or revocation of its grant), not the solar project; the Judge correctly based instruction fees on the value of the land.
Applying Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates as approved by the Supreme Court in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, value of subject matter is drawn from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. The pleadings sought compensation for the land or revocation of the grant; the project was at a nascent stage and was not the subject matter. The Judge's valuation of the land at Kshs. 1 million per acre was a discretionary finding not shown to be erroneous in law.
Judicial notice of land values
Absent a professional valuation placed before the taxing officer, the Judge could not be faulted for taking judicial notice of land values in Garissa under Sections 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act.
The advocates relied on the project contract for the project value but placed no material on the land's value. Judicial notice extends to facts a judge may act on from general knowledge or proper inquiry, per Commonwealth Shipping Representative as cited in Salat v IEBC. A valuation report would have been more objective, but its absence left the Judge free to take judicial notice of locally notorious land values.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal confines itself to matters of law unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse.
- The value of the subject matter for taxation of a bill of costs is to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where it is not ascertainable, the taxing officer must exercise discretion judiciously and on stated principles, not whimsically.
- A party asserting a particular value of land for purposes of computing instruction fees must place material before the taxing officer; absent a valuation, the court may take judicial notice of local land values.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- ELC Misc. Application No. 2 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Civil Procedure Act, Section 72(1) (matters of law only)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the ELC Judge's ruling reducing the taxed instruction fees from Kshs. 231,000,000 to Kshs. 5,452,500
Appellant failed to show the Judge considered matters he should not have, or failed to consider matters he should have, or that the decision was perverse
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This Court, on second appeal, confines itself to matters of law unless it is shown that the two courts below considered matters they should not have considered or failed to consider matters they should have considered or looking at the entire decision, it is perverse.
in exercising such unfettered discretion, the Taxing Officer is required to do so judiciously and not whimsically.
The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Humphrey & Company Advocates v Rural Electrification Authority", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal 336 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1758/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.