Muathe & others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1430 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court allowed a former client's bill of legal fees to be taxed immediately, even before their main petition is heard.
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 advocate/client bill of costs filed by Maanzo & Co. Advocates should be taxed before the petition is heard and determined, or whether taxation should await the determination of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the advocate/client bill of costs should be taxed before the hearing and determination of the petition
Yes. Section 49(d) of the Advocates Act permits a party, after a bill is filed and before the suit is set down for hearing, to seek directions on taxation before the suit is heard. Since the petition had not been set down for hearing and the applicants had terminated the advocate's instructions, there was no purpose in deferring taxation.
The court found both parties had misunderstood Section 49(d): it is not a precondition to filing a bill, as the applicants argued, nor does it oust the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued. It simply empowers any party to seek directions on the timing of taxation. The petition was not set down for hearing, and the applicants had already engaged new advocates, so the bill for costs already incurred could be taxed immediately.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 49(d) of the Advocates Act, after a bill of costs has been filed but before the suit is set down for hearing, any party to the action may take out a summons for directions as to whether the bill should be taxed before the suit is heard.
- Where an advocate's instructions have been terminated, there is no need to await the hearing of the main suit before the advocate's bill of costs is taxed.
Court orders
#- 1.The taxing officer shall proceed to tax the bill of costs filed by the firm of Maanzo & Co. Advocates before the petition is heard
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 49(d) of the Advocates Act
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 Section allows any party to the action to take out a chamber summons for directions as to whether such bill should be taxed by the taxing oficer before the suit is heard.
In the circumstances there is no point in waiting for the petition to be heard before the bill can be taxed. I therefore give directions that the taxing oficer shall proceed to tax the bill filed by the firm of Maanzo & Co. Advocates before the petition is heard.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the petition case number, the court station, or the court division in its text.
The name of the incoming advocate firm is spelled inconsistently within the judgment (Muriithi S. Kiragu & Co. Advocates vs Muriithi S. Kragu & Co. Advocate).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muathe & others v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 15 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1430 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1430/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.