Ngonyo Munyua & Company Advocates v Kivuti (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court slashed a lawyer's fee bill, ruling advocates can only charge for the legal work they actually performed, not work done by others.
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/chamber summons was properly before the court under Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
- 2.Whether this court should interfere with the taxing officer's decision, i.e. whether the taxing officer's ruling of 13 March 2025 on items nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 12 was based on an error of principle or was manifestly excessive
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction and procedure for a reference against a taxing officer's decision
The reference was properly before the court: the client objected in time under Order 11(1), sought reasons, and although reasons were not supplied, was satisfied the ruling contained sufficient reasons and lodged the reference promptly
The court set out Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which requires objection within fourteen days, reasons from the taxing officer, and a chamber summons to a judge within fourteen days of receipt of the reasons. The client's objection of 18 March 2025 followed the 13 March 2025 decision. Non-supply of formal reasons was treated as cured since the client proceeded on the ruling itself.
Item 1 - instruction fees to file suit (taxed at Kshs. 1,000,000)
Excessive and based on an error of principle because the taxing officer failed to consider that the advocate joined the matter after the plaint had been prepared by previous counsel, ceased acting after filing the amended plaint and defence to counterclaim, and that the client would still owe instruction fees to the first advocate
The advocate only joined at a later stage; the plaint dated 18 January 2019 was prepared by Meenye & Kirima Advocates; the matter had not proceeded to hearing at taxation. Relying on Leonard Katunga Mbuvi and Mayers v Hamilton, instruction fees grow as the matter proceeds and fees cannot be claimed for work not done, so the full Kshs. 1,000,000 was manifestly excessive.
Item 2 - instructions to defend the counterclaim (taxed at Kshs. 1,000,000)
Excessive and based on an error of principle; the counterclaim, though a separate suit, concerned trespass while the amended plaint concerned fraud, and the advocate had ceased to act
Following Kaur alias Kaur v Suri, a counterclaim is a separate and distinct suit attracting its own instruction fees, so a separate fee was justified. However, guided by Leonard Katunga Mbuvi, the court held that given the ongoing nature of the matter, the advocate's cessation of act, and the differing causes of action, the Kshs. 1,000,000 taxed was excessive.
Item 5 - getting up fees (Kshs. 333,333, being one-third of instruction fees)
Excessive and an error on principle, both because the instruction fees were themselves excessive and because the matter was probably prepared for trial by the previous counsel
Under Schedule 6A(2), getting-up fees are tied to the instruction fee allowed on taxation. The advocate did not submit its notice of appointment with the BOC; cause lists suggested the matter set for hearing on 26 January 2022 was probably prepared by Meenye & Kirima Advocates. Since the instruction fees were found excessive, the derivative getting-up fee was also excessive.
Items 3, 7 (and 9, 10 as framed by the court)
Assessed to scale; the taxing officer's assessment was not disturbed
The court found no error of principle or manifest excessiveness on these drawing items and left the assessment intact, narrowing the success of the reference to items 1, 2 and 5.
Legal principles established
#- A court should refrain from interfering with a taxing officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle
- An advocate cannot properly claim fees in respect of work he had not done; the entitlement under instruction fees grows as the matter proceeds and the taxing master must consider the work done up to the time of taxation
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 31 March is allowed, with each party bearing their own costs
- 2.The advocate-client bill of costs dated 27 May 2024 is remitted for taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. Victoria Ochanda (Ms.) Deputy Registrar
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 and Order 11 thereof
Relief refused
#Re-taxation of items nos. 3 and 7 (drawing of notice of motion/notice of appointment; drawing of amended plaint)
The court found those items were assessed to scale and saw no reason to disturb the taxing officer's assessment
Setting aside of the certificate of taxation in full
Only items 1, 2 and 5 were found to be excessive; the balance of the assessment stands
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
The chamber summons dated 31 March is allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.
The advocate-client bill of costs dated 27 May 2024 is remitted for taxation before a taxing oficer other than Hon. Victoria Ochanda (Ms.) Deputy Registrar.
a court should refrain from intervening in decisions made by the taxing oficer concerning taxation unless it can be demonstrated that the decision was based on an error of principle or that the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle.
an advocate is entitled to claim the minimum instruction fees but he cannot properly claim fees in respect of work he had not done. The entitlement under the instruction fees grows as the matter proceeds.
the instruction fees of Kshs. 1,000,000/- awarded to the advocate by the taxing oficer is evidently excessive and does justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle.
having determined that the instruction fees were excessive, it follows that the getting-up fees of Kshs. 333,333/-, which is one-third of the instruction fees, is evidently excessive.
Issues in the judgment
#Scope mismatch between the objection and the court's disposition: the reference concerned items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 12, but the analysis of items 3, 7 also refers to items 9 and 10, which were not part of the objection, and item 12 is never addressed
Chronological inconsistency: the replying affidavit of the advocate is described as sworn on 17 November 2025 and submissions dated 9 February 2026 in a ruling on a summons dated 31 March 2025 delivered 5 May 2026, while the client's submissions were said to be filed after a 14-day window from 28 January 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngonyo Munyua & Company Advocates v Kivuti (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber summons dated 31 March 2025 (Advocate's Client Bill of Costs dated 27 May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2609/eng@2026-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.