County Government of Siaya v Oruenjo Kibet & Khalid Advocates (Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1477 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court slashed a Kshs 156 million legal fee to Kshs 5 million, ruling advocates cannot charge full fees for cases decided early without trial.
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 Applicant has established valid grounds to warrant setting aside the Taxing Master's ruling
- 2.If yes, whether the Bill of costs should be remitted to a different Taxing Master to be taxed afresh
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in assessing instructions fees
Yes - the Taxing Master relied on value proposals made in submissions rather than on the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and the acreage is not the value of the suit property.
The value of the subject matter was neither pleaded nor ascertainable from any judgment or settlement. The Taxing Master derived value from counsel's submissions, including a per-acre estimate and a google search figure. The Court of Appeal authorities establish that the taxing officer's discretion only arises after engaging the mandatory starting point of pleadings, judgment or settlement. Reliance on submissions, which are not evidence, was an error of principle.
Whether full instructions fees were justified where the suit was disposed of at preliminary objection stage
No - fees must be reasonable and commensurate with work done; charging full instructions fees for a matter resolved at preliminary objection stage was excessive.
The substantive suit was determined on a preliminary objection without hearing on merits, so complexity had not fully kicked in. The court applied the Supreme Court's reasonability principle in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, holding that fees should reflect the amount of work done and should not impede access to justice or amount to unjust enrichment at the expense of the tax-paying public.
Whether the court should remit the bill for fresh taxation or tax it itself
The court exercised its own discretion and taxed the contested items itself, setting instructions fees at Kshs. 5,000,000 and item 2 at Kshs. 2,500,000.
While Joreth endorses remittal to the same or another taxing officer as the general practice, the court found no authority making remittance mandatory and noted that the discretion to tax the bill itself remains available. Guided by the figure of Kshs. 5,000,000 upheld by Majanja J in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, the court fixed instructions fees and reduced item 2 accordingly.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation of instructions fees must be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; submissions are not evidence and cannot supply that value.
- Instructions fees are not static; they must be reasonable, commensurate with the work done, and must not impede access to justice.
- A court may interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision where there is an error of principle or where the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or so high as to confine access to the court to the wealthy.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on 29th May 2024 is set aside on items 1 and 2 of the Bill of costs dated 9th March 2024
- 2.Items 1 and 2 of the Bill of costs are taxed at Kshs. 5,000,000 and Kshs. 2,500,000 respectively
- 3.The rest of the items of the Bill of costs are retained and upheld as taxed by Honourable L. Simiyu, Deputy Registrar on 29th May 2024
- 4.The Certificate of Costs issued pursuant to the ruling of the Taxing Master is set aside
- 5.A Certificate of Costs to issue based on the ruling of the court under this reference
- 6.Each party to bear their costs on this reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master (Deputy Registrar, Siaya)
- Misc. E005 of 2024 - Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 9th March 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Remittal of the Bill of costs to a different Taxing Master to be taxed afresh
The court found remittance not mandatory and instead exercised its own discretion to tax the contested items itself
Costs of the reference to the Applicant
The court declined to award costs to avoid escalation of costs
Costs
Each party to bear their costs on this reference for the reasons already stated.
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.
The ruling of the Taxing Master delivered by the Honourable L. Simiyu, Deputy Registrar on the 29th day of May, 2024 is hereby set aside on items 1 and 2 of the Bill of costs dated 9th March 2024.
Items 1 and 2 of the Bill of costs dated 9th March 2024 are hereby taxed at Kshs. 5,000,000/- and 2,500,000/- respectively
Each party to bear their costs on this reference for the reasons already stated.
It is now trite that submissions are not evidence.
There was no reasonability in charging the full instructions fees for a matter that was disposed of at preliminary objection stage.
there was an error of principle in arriving at the Taxing Oficers decision to uphold the instructions fees as raised by considering propositions outside the pleadings which were not evidence of the value of the subject matter.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of the impugned ruling: the depositions and prayer refer to a ruling delivered on 29th May 2024, while the Respondent's replying affidavit refers to a ruling delivered on 25/5/2024.
The instruction fees figure appears inconsistently as Ksh. 156,025,500 and Kshs.156,025,000 in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Siaya v Oruenjo Kibet & Khalid Advocates (Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1477 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application (Chamber Summons) dated 19th June 2024, arising from Siaya ELC Misc. Application No. E019 of 2022 taxation reference. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1477/eng@2025-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.