Otieno & Achieng Advocates v Warera (Miscellaneous Cause E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4134 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a Taxing Master's Kshs.50,000 fee award because the advocate failed to prove the case's value from pleadings or judgment.
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 Taxing Master erred in taxing item 1 of the Bill of Costs at Kshs.50,000/- by assuming no specific amount was claimed, thereby computing instructions fees on an erroneous value of the subject matter under Schedule 7 Rule 1(b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in assessing instructions fees at Kshs.50,000/- under Schedule 7 Rule 1(b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014
The Reference fails; the Taxing Master's discretion was judicially exercised
The Applicant contended the suit land's value was Kshs.900,000/- per acre for 17 acres, while the Bill of Costs stated Kshs.20,000,000/-. The court found no evidence attached to the application or Bill of Costs showing the value was ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. Notably, the plaint itself was not availed to court. In such circumstances the Taxing Master's discretion on instructions fees stands unless shown to have been exercised unjudicially.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation purposes is to be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement where applicable
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the Taxing Master exercises discretion to tax instructions fees in the circumstances of the case, and that discretion should not be interfered with if exercised judicially
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs as the Reference was not opposed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the Taxing Master's decision of 6th December 2024 on item 1 of the Bill of Costs
The Taxing Master exercised her discretion judicially as there was no evidence that the value of the subject matter was ascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement
Remittal of the Bill of Costs dated 21st February 2024 for taxation before the same Taxing Master with directions
The Reference was dismissed in its entirety
Costs of the Reference to the Advocate/Applicant
The Reference was unopposed
Costs
No orders as to costs as the Reference was not opposed
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 value of the subject matter is to be ascertained from the pleadings, judgement or settlement (where applicable).
I find that the Taxing Master exercised her discretion judicially and I find no reason to interfere with the decision.
The Reference is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs as the Reference was not opposed.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistency in the value of the subject matter: the Bill of Costs indicates Kshs.20,000,000/- while the Chamber Summons and submissions state Kshs.15,300,000/- (17 acres at Kshs.900,000)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Otieno & Achieng Advocates v Warera (Miscellaneous Cause E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4134 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Advocate's Reference - Chamber Summons dated 18th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4134/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.