Menjo v Mokoosio & another (Environment and Land Case E075 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5764 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a legal fee ruling because the Taxing Master set the case value at Ksh.20 million without explaining how she got that figure.
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 Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Taxing Master did not appropriately exercise her discretion to warrant issuance of the orders sought
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has met the threshold for review of the orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in determining the value of the subject matter
Yes - the Taxing Master valued the subject matter at Ksh.20 million without explaining the basis, where there was no judgment, settlement, or ascertainable value from the pleadings
The court reviewed authorities including Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates, Peter Muthoka v Ochieng and the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot & Company Advocates, which require the value of the subject matter to be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement. Here the suit was withdrawn before hearing, no defence was filed and no settlement existed, so the Taxing Master had no statutory starting point and failed to explain how she arrived at Ksh.20 million. That was an error of principle warranting interference.
Whether the Plaintiff met the threshold for review of the orders of 9th December, 2024
The review application became moot once the Taxing Master's ruling was set aside
The Notice of Motion under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 sought review of stay conditions requiring payment of Ksh.375,000 to the Respondents. Since the court set aside the entire ruling of 10th July, 2024 on which the stay conditions were premised, there was nothing left to review, and the application was rendered moot.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless it is based on an error of principle, or the sum awarded is so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle
- The value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees must be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; only where these are not ascertainable may the Taxing Officer exercise discretion
Court orders
#- 1.Taxing Officer Ruling dated 10th July, 2024 in respect of the Defendants/Respondents party and party Bills of Costs dated 2nd March, 2023 is hereby set aside
- 2.The Bills of Costs to be retaxed afresh by another Taxing Officer other than Hon. Jane Kamau
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against Taxing Master's ruling); Section 80 Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Civil Procedure Rules (review)
Relief refused
#Notice of Motion dated 11th December, 2024 seeking review of orders of 9th December, 2024 to allow deposit of Ksh.375,000 with the court or a joint account
Having set aside the Taxing Master's ruling, the reference on the stay condition was rendered moot
Costs
Each party bears its own costs - 'Given the outcome, it is only fair that each party bears its own costs.'
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.
Taxing Officer Ruling dated 10th July, 2024 in respect of the Defendants/Respondents party and party Bills of Costs dated 2nd March, 2023 is hereby set aside.
The Bills of Costs to be retaxed afresh by another Taxing Officer other than Hon. Jane Kamau.
Going by the above judicial pronouncement it is the finding of this court that the Taxing Master erred in determining the value of the subject matter.
Given the outcome, it is only fair that each party bears its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Application date inconsistency: the Chamber Summons is dated 19th July, 2024 in the heading and paragraph 2 refers to orders of 19th July 2024, but the body says 'Chamber Summons Application dated 14th July'
The judgment refers to withdrawal allowed with costs on 7th November, 2023 while elsewhere the withdrawal was dated 7th November, 2022 and costs awarded on 26th January, 2023, an internal chronological inconsistency
Grounds of opposition dated 27th March 2025 refer to orders issued on 9th December,2022 rather than 9th December, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Menjo v Mokoosio & another (Environment and Land Case E075 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5764/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.