Karume & 3 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 816 of 2012 & 47 of 2010 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4618 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a Kshs 10 million instruction fee award, ruling that taxing officers cannot inflate legal fees by counting costs already covered elsewhere.
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 Officer committed an error of principle warranting the Court's interference with her decision on the taxation of instruction fees (Items 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs)
Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees of Kshs. 10,000,000/= was vitiated by an error of principle
Yes - the Taxing Officer erred by factoring in attendances and appellate costs already taxed elsewhere, rendering the award excessive
Although the value of the subject property was unascertainable and the Taxing Officer was entitled to exercise discretion, she wrongly considered attendances before two judges and the fact of appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, matters chargeable or already taxed separately. This was an error of principle making the award manifestly excessive, warranting interference and remission for fresh taxation of Items 1 and 2.
Consequence for the getting-up fees
Getting-up fees, being one-third of the instruction fees, must be adjusted along with the instruction fees
Since the getting-up fee is computed as one-third of the instruction fee, once the instruction fee is found to have been determined on an erroneous principle, the getting-up fee derived from it cannot stand and must be revisited on remission.
Legal principles established
#- A Court should refrain from interfering with a taxing officer's decision unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was so obviously excessive as to indicate a mistake of principle.
- Where the sum awarded on taxation is so manifestly excessive, an error of principle can be inferred, and an instruction fee arrived at on wrong principles will be set aside.
- A taxing officer may only consider attendances and appeals chargeable separately under the Advocates Remuneration Order; taking them into account in fixing instruction fees is an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 17/2/2026 is allowed
- 2.The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 21/10/2025 is remitted for taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. Judith Omollo, Deputy Registrar
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure 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.
a. The Chamber Summons dated 17/2/2026 is allowed. b. The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 21/10/2025 is remitted for taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. Judith Omollo, Deputy Registrar. c. Each party to bear their own costs.
The Court finds that an error of principle was committed, which vitiated the award of instruction fees, making it excessive. This necessitates interference by the Court.
The discretion of a Taxing Officer is judicial. It is to be exercised judicially and judiciously. It is not to be exercised whimsically or capriciously, according to personal inclination.
We would at this stage point out that the value of the subject matter of a suit for the purposes of taxation of a bill of costs ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement (if such be the case)
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the Bill of Costs date: elsewhere the Bill is dated 21/2/2025 but the final orders refer to a Bill dated 21/10/2025
Respondent's submissions date appears mistyped as 30/4/2016 in a 2026 matter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karume & 3 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 816 of 2012 & 47 of 2010 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4618 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 816 of 2012 (NBI). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4618/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.