Carlisle Development Co Ltd v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a wrongly calculated Kshs. 581,135 instruction fee award and ordered fresh taxation before a different taxing officer.
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 Honourable Taxing Officer erred in principle in the assessment of Instruction Fees.
- 2.Who should bear the cost of this application?
Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The reference was competent and timeously filed within 14 days, conferring jurisdiction on the Court.
The Court outlined the mandatory Rule 11 procedure: notice of objection within 14 days, reasons from the taxing officer, chamber summons within 14 days of receipt of reasons, and appeal to the Court of Appeal only with leave. The Applicant filed the Notice of Objection and the reference on 7/10/2025, within 14 days of the 23/9/2025 ruling, and identified the specific item objected to, satisfying all requirements.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees
Although the Taxing Officer applied the correct schedule (Schedule 11, Rule 8), he erred in the computation, producing an award manifestly too low.
The value of the subject matter (Kshs. 731,135,000) was ascertainable from the pleadings and judgment. The Taxing Officer correctly identified Schedule 11, Rule 8 and applied the graduated scale, but the figure of Kshs. 120,000 as fees for the first Kshs. 250,000,000 does not appear anywhere in the schedule. The resulting award of Kshs. 581,135 was therefore computed on a wrong figure, an error of principle producing a manifestly low award warranting intervention.
Legal principles established
#- The Advocates Act and Advocates Remuneration Order are complete statutes on taxation; the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked to challenge a taxing officer's decision.
- A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion absent an error of principle or improper exercise of discretion resulting in injustice.
- Failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter for taxation is an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 7/10/2025 is meritorious.
- 2.The Taxing Officer's award of Kshs. 581,135/= as instruction fees is set aside and/or varied.
- 3.The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 14/7/2025 is remitted back for re-taxation of Item 1 (Instruction Fees) only before a different Taxing Officer of the Tribunal other than Hon. Kaimenyi Kanyiri.
- 4.The Applicant is granted costs of the application.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal (Taxing Master's ruling)
- Tribunal Case No. E044 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Direct taxation of Item 1 of the Bill of Costs by the court in the first instance (alternative relief not expressly granted)
The Court instead remitted Item 1 for re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer rather than taxing it itself.
Costs
The Applicant is granted costs of the application.
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. That the Chamber Summons application dated 7/10/ 2025 is meritorious. b. The Taxing Officer's award of Kshs. 581,135/= as instruction fees is set aside and/or varied.
The Party & Party Bill of Costs dated 14/7/2025 is hereby remitted back for re-taxation of Item 1 (Instruction Fees) only before a different Taxing Officer of the Tribunal other than Hon. Kaimenyi Kanyiri.
although the taxing officer identified the correct schedule to apply, he erred in principle in his computation of the figure, thereby granting an award that is manifestly too low.
a party cannot invoke the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act or the Rules made thereunder for the purpose of challenging any decision of the Taxing Officer.
Failure to ascertain the correct subject matter in a suit for the purpose of taxation is an error of principle. So too, failure to ascribe the correct value to the subject matter is an error of principle.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the judgment in the tribunal case was entered on 7/2/2025, but later refers to 'the Judgment delivered on 25/9/2024', an internal inconsistency in dates.
The Court notes the Applicant did not file submissions as directed, yet states it read the Applicant's submissions on record, without explaining the discrepancy.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Carlisle Development Co Ltd v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MISC. E314.2025-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5292/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.