Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Misc. No. E259 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)

Otieno Okeyo & Co Advocates v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E259 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 September 2026
CMC.G. MBOGO
1,666 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court upheld a Kshs.7.17 million taxed advocate-client costs award, finding the client failed to prove any error in how fees were calculated.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The client/applicant filed a chamber summons dated 5th January 2026 under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 seeking stay of execution of taxed costs, enlargement of time to file a reference, setting aside of the taxing master's ruling of 14th August 2025 which awarded the advocate/respondent Kshs.7,171,291.67 in an advocate-client bill arising from ELC No. 1453 of 2007 (concerning LR No. 1134/R Nairobi), vacation of the certificate of taxation, and remittal to a different master. The applicant explained the delay through an inadvertent failure by counsel handling the file, discovered only on 29th December 2025 during an annual file review, and contended the instruction fees (Kshs.5,000,000) and getting up fees (Kshs.1,666,666.67) were exorbitant. The advocate/respondent opposed via grounds of opposition, arguing no error of principle was shown and that the client failed to file a valuation as ordered. The court framed one issue: whether the taxing officer erred in taxing the bill. Applying Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Moronge v Kenya Airports Authority, the court held that since no valuation established the value of the suit property, the taxing officer properly exercised discretion in assessing instruction fees. Relying on the Premchand Raichand principle that taxation is not a mathematical exercise, the court found the award reasonable given the vast property and work done. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Kshs.5,000,000 and getting up fees of Kshs.1,666,666.67

Holding

No error of principle; the award was reasonable given the vast property and work done

Reasoning

The suit property's value was not established by any valuation report or by the judgment, so the taxing officer was entitled to exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees. The Kshs.100,000,000 prayer in the plaint was not granted and could not be included. Considering the size of the property (23.6 acres) and work done, the award of Kshs.5,000,000 instruction fees was reasonable. Taxation is not a mathematical exercise and courts interfere only where the award causes injustice.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may exercise discretion to assess a just instruction fee
  • Taxation is not a mathematical exercise; a court will interfere with a taxing officer's award only where it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The chamber summons dated 5th January, 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(1)(2)(3)(4); Rule 11(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 4
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (4)

  • Joreth Kigano & Associates
    [2002] eKLR
  • Moronge & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority
    [2014] KECA 816 (KLR)
  • Republic v Minister for Agriculture; W'Njuguna & 8 others (Ex parte)
    (Miscellaneous Civil Application 621 of 2000) [2006] KEHC 3504
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Another
    [1972] E.A. 162
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014; Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Otieno Okeyo & Co Advocates v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E259 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Misc. No. E259 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5377/eng@2026-09-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.