Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government; Sakau & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8234 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court threw out a Kshs. 519,812 legal fee bill against Narok County Government, ruling the taxing officer applied fees mechanically rather than following the legal fee schedule.
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 Preliminary Objection dated 9th May 2025 is merited
- 2.Whether the Chamber Summons Application dated 27th January 2025 is merited
- 3.Who should pay costs of this Reference
Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection based on out-of-time filing under Paragraph 11(2) ARO was merited
Not merited. The reference was filed within 14 days of receipt of the certified ruling and written reasons on 22nd January 2025, so time ran from receipt of reasons, not the taxation date of 18th December 2024.
The court applied the two-step structure of Paragraph 11: an objector must give notice within 14 days of the decision, and after receiving the taxing master's reasons has 14 days to file the reference by chamber summons. The Applicant gave notice on 18th December 2024 and received the certified ruling and reasons on 22nd January 2025, filing the reference on 27th January 2025, within 5 days of receipt. It could not be faulted for delays in the taxing master supplying reasons.
Whether the taxing master erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Ksh. 250,000/= where no defence had been filed and the value of the subject matter was unascertainable
Yes. The taxing master recited general considerations without applying them to the specifics of the matter, treating the assessment as a mechanical exercise; the award of instruction fees was erroneous and could not stand.
The value of the subject matter was unascertainable, so the taxing master exercised discretion, but the guidance in Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex-parte W'Njuguna requires rational, specific criteria. Here the Advocate only filed a memorandum of appearance, never filed a defence, acted for a short period (3rd August 2021 to 12th October 2021), and the underlying suit was still ongoing. The taxing master did not explain what duration, care and labour he considered, warranting interference.
Whether specific items (service, attendance fees, drawing of documents, perusal of documents) were properly taxed
Service at Ksh. 5,000/= (Schedule 7(10) allows Ksh. 1,400/=) and attendance fees at Ksh. 10,000/= (Schedule 7(7) allows Ksh. 5,000/= full day, Ksh. 2,100/= half day) were excessive and could not stand; perusal items Nos 2,3,10,11 and 12 were within Schedule 7(11)(1) and would remain as drawn.
The court examined Schedule 7 item by item. Drawing and perusal of documents are in fact provided for in Schedule 7, contrary to the Applicant's submission. However, service of a memorandum of appearance via email at Ksh. 5,000/= exceeded the Ksh. 1,400/= prescribed, and attendance at Ksh. 10,000/= exceeded the prescribed scale, especially where no defence was filed and attendance may have been online.
Legal principles established
#- The 14-day period for filing a reference under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order runs from receipt of the certified ruling and reasons for taxation, not from the date of the taxing decision itself
- A judge on a reference interferes with a taxing officer's decision only on an error of principle, or where the fee awarded is manifestly excessive so as to infer such an error
- A taxing officer who merely recites general considerations without applying them to the specific facts commits an error of principle
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 9th May 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Client/Applicant
- 2.The Chamber Summons Application/Reference dated 27th January 2025 is allowed entirely in terms of prayers Nos 1 and 2
- 3.The Ruling and Order of the Taxing Officer Hon. Daniel Ngayo dated 21st December 2024 taxing the Advocate/Respondent's Advocate-Client Bill of Costs at Kshs. 519,812/50 is set aside and the Bill is to be taxed afresh
- 4.Directions for re-taxation/assessment of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 4th October 2023 before a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Daniel Ngayo
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs of the Reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(1) and 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 - reference to a Judge against the decision of a Taxing Officer
Relief refused
#Prayer 3 - costs of the Reference to the Client/Applicant
Given the previous advocate-client relationship, the court directed each party to bear its own costs of the Reference, while awarding the costs of the Preliminary Objection to the Client/Applicant
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the Reference; costs of the Preliminary Objection dated 9th May 2025 awarded to the Client/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.
Consequently, this court finds and holds that the Preliminary Objection herein is not merited, and the same is dismissed entirely with costs to the client/Applicant.
The Client/Applicant did not receive the reasons or certified copy of the Ruling until 22nd January 2025, and it cannot be faulted for failure to file the Reference after 14 days from the date of receipt of the reasons for taxation.
The court finds and holds that the taxing oficer herein treated the assessment as a mechanical exercise and did not look at the case independently and keenly to come to a fair remuneration for work done.
this court comes to a conclusion that the said Application/Reference is merited, and allowed entirely in terms of prayers Nos 1and 2 thereon.
the instant Chamber Summons Application/ Reference is allowed entirely in terms of prayers Nos 1 and 2 with an order that each party to bear its own costs. However, costs of the Preliminary Objection are awarded to the Client/Applicant herein
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives inconsistent start dates for the advocate-client relationship: 'between 3rd June 2021 and 12th October 2022' in one passage and '3rd August 2021 to 12th October 2022' in others
The judgment states the advocate-client relationship ended 12th October 2022 in some passages but states elsewhere that the Advocate was on record only 'from 3rd August 2021 to 12th October 2021'
The case number of this reference is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government; Sakau & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8234 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8234/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.