Odunga & Associates Advocates v Inuka Afrika Properties Limited (Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3629 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court cut a lawyer's fee back because the Taxing Master valued the property far above what either side proposed.
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 principle in assigning a value of Kshs 28,000,000/= to the subject matter when the advocate urged a value of Kshs 10,200,000/= and the client urged Kshs 2,000,000/=
- 2.Whether the Taxing Master could rely on the judgment in ELC E038 of 2023 and a valuation not produced by the advocate at the taxation without breaching the client's right to a fair hearing
- 3.Whether the value of the subject matter was ascertainable given that the plaint sought only declaratory orders
- 4.Whether a stay of execution of the ruling and certificate of taxation should issue
Key legal issues
#Reliance on documents in the court record not produced at taxation
Not fatal; the Taxing Master did not exceed her jurisdiction in consulting the principal file, but her discretion was bounded by the values submitted by the parties
The court held that the Taxing Master went beyond the taxation file by using the judgment in ELC E038 of 2023, but this was for taxation purposes and within her jurisdiction. Parties need not re-produce documents already on the court record. However, her discretion to pick a value was limited to the ceiling submitted by the parties; departing from the advocate's pleaded value of Kshs 10,200,000/= to assign Kshs 28,000,000/= was a serious error that ambushed the client.
Error of principle in valuing the subject matter
Assigning a value higher than that urged by the advocate was a serious error of principle justifying setting aside the instructions fee
The Taxing Master assigned Kshs 28,000,000/= while the advocate urged Kshs 10,200,000/= and the client Kshs 2,000,000/= (supported by the Land Control Board consent and transfer). Because the bill belongs to the advocate, the Taxing Master could not go beyond what he submitted. The client could be excused for saying it was ambushed by the higher value, warranting remittal to another Taxing Master with directions.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation should be ascertained from the pleadings, proceedings, judgment or settlement
- A Taxing Master may consult the court record (including the principal file and its judgment) without the parties re-producing those documents at taxation
- A Taxing Master cannot exceed the maximum value submitted by the parties; she could not go beyond the value the advocate sought since the bill belongs to the advocate
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is allowed to the extent that the taxation of Item No 1 (instructions fee) in the advocate/client Bill of costs dated 6th May 2025 is set aside entirely
- 2.The instructions fee item is referred back for taxation before any Taxing Master other than Thamara, R.M.
- 3.Direction that the exercise of discretion in the next taxation session should observe the ceilings set by the parties' submissions
- 4.All other unrelated items in the bill of costs remain unaffected by the ruling
- 5.The Taxing Master shall, upon proof by documentation, take into consideration any sum proved to have been paid by the client to the advocate as urged in paragraph 29 of the client's submission dated 19/6/2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Act regime for advocate/client taxation; no specific provision quoted in the ruling
Relief refused
#A general stay of the ruling and execution of the certificate of taxation
The court instead set aside and remitted the impugned item, making an express stay unnecessary; the ruling set aside only the instructions fee item, leaving other items intact
Costs
No express order on costs of the reference; the application sought costs 'be provided for' but the ruling's final orders make no costs award
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 upshot of the foregoing is that this court finds that the present reference has merit and the same is hereby allowed to the extent that the taxation of Item No 1 (instructions fee) in the advocate client Bill of costs dated 6th May 2025 is hereby set aside entirely and referred back for taxation before any Taxing Master other than Thamara, R.M., with the direction that the exercise of discretion in the next taxation session should observe the ceilings set by the parties’ submissions.
For the avoidance of doubt all other unrelated items in the bill of costs remain unafiected by this ruling.
There was no error of principle to that extent since the value should be ascertained from the pleadings, proceedings, judgment or settlement.
She could not suo moto exceed the value that the advocate was seeking.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date appears out of sequence with the chronology: the impugned ruling was delivered 29th September 2025 and the application dated 27th October 2025, yet the ruling is dated 11th June 2026
The application sought costs but the final orders make no express costs award
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odunga & Associates Advocates v Inuka Afrika Properties Limited (Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 27th October, 2025 (Taxation Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3629/eng@2026-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.