Kamundi & another v South Coast Holdings Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3323 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed an advocate's challenge to how legal fees were taxed, ordering a fresh calculation with interest—but refused to set the fee amount itself.
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 reference herein is properly before court
- 2.Whether this court should disturb the decision of the taxing officer as prayed
- 3.Whether the court should tax or remit the Bill
Key legal issues
#Timeliness and form of the reference
The reference filed on 16/08/2024 was properly before the court; time ran from the Monday after the ruling was uploaded after hours on a Friday, and failure to cite all provisions is curable under Order 51 Rule 10(1).
The ruling was uploaded past official working hours on a Friday and seen on Monday, losing three days of the fourteen. Order 50 Rule 6 permits enlargement of time and Order 51 Rule 10(1) bars refusal of an application merely for failure to state the enabling provision. The court therefore found the reference properly filed.
Effect of Rule 77(2) ARO where more than one-sixth is taxed off
Rule 77(2) finality applies only to the decision to disallow costs of the taxation, not to the taxing officer's ruling on the Bill, otherwise Rule 11(2) references would be defeated.
The respondent argued that once more than one-sixth was taxed off the taxing officer's decision was final and no reference lay. The court read Rule 77(2) as confined to the disallowance of costs of taxation proceedings, noting the taxing officer herself had so applied it by ordering the applicant to bear own costs of the bill.
Determination of the value of the subject matter and instruction fees
The taxing officer erred in principle by pegging instruction fees on a Redfearn valuation report rather than the pleadings, judgment or settlement; unascertained plaint figures could not supply the value, and the matter was remitted for fresh taxation.
Applying Joreth Ltd v Kigano, Peter Muthoka v Ochieng and Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot, the value of the subject matter must come from pleadings, judgment or settlement; only if unascertainable may the taxing officer exercise discretion. The taxing officer correctly found the plaint figures unascertained but then wrongly resorted to a valuation report, an error of principle warranting interference.
Interest on the taxed costs
The taxing officer erred in failing to award interest; interest at 14% per annum is available under Rule 7 of the ARO from the expiration of 30 days from delivery of the taxation ruling.
Rule 7 entitles an advocate to 14% per annum interest where a claim is raised before payment, running one month from delivery of the bill. Following Amondi & Co Advocates v County Government of Kisumu, the court pegged the 30 days to delivery of the taxation ruling since the client was present and thus aware of the bill. The taxing officer's silence on interest meant none was awarded, an error.
Whether to tax the Bill itself or remit it
The Bill was remitted to a different Deputy Registrar Taxing Master rather than taxed by the judge, quantum being the province of taxing masters.
The applicant asked the court to tax the bill directly for efficiency. The judge declined to descend into the arena, relying on Peter Muthoka v Ochieng that matters of quantum of taxation belong to taxing masters, and gave guidance sufficient for a fresh taxation.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under Rule 11(2) is properly before the court where the ruling was uploaded after official working hours on a Friday; the weekend does not count in computing the fourteen days
- Rule 77(2) of the ARO rendering a taxing officer's decision final applies only to the decision declining costs of taxation, not to the ruling on the Bill itself
- Unascertained amounts pleaded in a plaint cannot constitute the value of the subject matter for instruction fees
- Interest on taxed advocate-client costs is payable at 14% per annum from the expiration of 30 days from delivery of the taxation ruling
Court orders
#- 1.The determination of the value of the subject matter and the instructions fees in paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 3 of the ruling dated 31/07/2024 are hereby set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs is hereby remitted to a different Deputy Registrar Taxing Master for taxation afresh on the instruction's fees, with interest applied appropriately as guided by the court
- 3.Costs of the application are granted to the Applicant
- 4.Leave to appeal this decision is granted if required
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, read with sections 1A, 1B and 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act and the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Prayer to have the court itself tax the Bill at Kshs 25,083,443.00 inclusive of VAT and interest
The court declined to descend into the arena; quantum of taxation belongs to taxing masters
Applicant's claim that the value of the subject matter was determinable from the prayers in the Plaint (Kshs 1,081,855,978.00)
Unascertained and unconfirmed figures in the plaint cannot be the value of the subject matter per the Supreme Court in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot
Costs
Costs of the application are granted to the Applicant
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 determination of the value of the subject matter and the instructions fees in paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 3 of the ruling dated 31/07/2024 are hereby set aside.
The Bill of Costs is hereby remitted to a different Deputy Registrar Taxing Master for taxation afresh on the instruction's fees. Interest shall be applied appropriately as guided hereinabove.
Costs of the application are granted to the Applicant
It is the finding of this court that the Taxing Officer erred in failing to award interest and which is available at 14% per annum from the expiration of 30 days from the date when the Ruling is delivered.
My interpretation of the above provisions is that subrule (2) refers to the decision of the taxing master to decline to award costs of the taxation proceedings. This is what shall be rendered final and not the taxing officers ruling on the Bill of Costs.
the effect of the entirety of the foregoing analysis is that there was an error of principle in arriving at the Taxing Officers decision. Consequently there is justification to interfere with the taxing masters decision.
Issues in the judgment
#The cause number of the underlying suit is inconsistently stated: 'ELC Cause No. 171 of 2028' appears to be a typographical error for 2018 given the plaint is dated 23/07/2018
The heading of paragraph 34 repeats the heading of paragraph 18 verbatim, though the content addresses grounds of interference
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamundi & another v South Coast Holdings Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3323 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 16/08/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3323/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.