Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 errors of principle in the taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated in the Ruling of 9th July 2024
- 2.Whether the reference filed by the Advocate should be allowed
- 3.Whether the Court should deal with the Client's counter-reference on the increase of instruction fees by 50%
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs at Kshs. 468,005 was affected by errors of principle
The reference was allowed on the concurrence of both parties that there were errors of principle; the Court observed that the taxed figure was, in its cursory view, neither too high nor too low
The Advocate filed a reference alleging errors of principle, and the Client in its submissions made a counter-reference alleging the Taxing Officer erred in increasing instruction fees by 50% absent taxed party-party costs. With both parties agreeing taxation was flawed, the Court allowed the reference and set the Ruling aside, directing the parties to settle the Bill or have it re-taxed before a different Taxing Officer.
Whether the Court should nonetheless retain the taxed figure
The Court expressed the view that the taxation was reasonable given the value of the subject matter, but this did not prevent setting aside on the parties' concurrence
The underlying claim in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018 was quantified at Kshs. 1,098,778 and the Advocate had sought Kshs. 700,000 in instruction fees alone; the Taxing Officer granted Kshs. 150,000 on that item, with the overall Bill taxed at Kshs. 468,005. The Court took a cursory view that this was neither excessive nor inadequate, but deferred to the parties' shared position and directed settlement or re-taxation.
Legal principles established
#- Where both parties concur that taxation was attended by errors of principle, the Court has no reason to decline to allow the reference and set aside the taxing officer's ruling
- Advocates and their clients should first seek to settle Bills of Costs by consultation rather than repeatedly resorting to the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The Application filed by the Advocate dated 6th August 2024 is allowed and the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 9th July 2024 set aside with the consent of the Parties as expressed in their Submissions on record
- 2.The Advocates are directed to constructively engage, consult, and agree on the Bill of Costs
- 3.In the event they do not agree, the Bill of Costs shall be re-taxed before another Taxing Officer
- 4.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer, Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
- Advocate-Client Bill of Costs in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's Ruling under the Advocates Act taxation regime (provision not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Direct re-taxation as the primary outcome
The Court directed the parties to first attempt to settle the Bill of Costs among themselves, with re-taxation only as a fallback
Costs
No order on the 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 Court has no reason not to grant the reference, in light of the concurrence of the Parties, that taxation had errors of principle.
As the Parties both disagree with the Taxing Oficer, the Court shall allow the reference. The Advocates should however consult and settle this Bill of Costs, instead of constantly revisiting the Courts, and chasing the best outcomes.
The Application filed by the Advocate dated 6th August 2024 is allowed, and the Ruling of the Taxing Oficer dated 9th July 2024, set aside with the consent of the Parties, as expressed in their Submissions on record.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment repeatedly misspells 'Officer' as 'Oficer' and 'officer' as 'oficer' throughout, including in the final orders
The date of swearing of the Client's replying affidavit is illegible, having been blurred by the Commissioner for Oaths' stamp
Typographical error in the quantum of the claim: 'quantified at Kshs. at Kshs. 1,098,778'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application (Reference) arising from E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018; related to Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/986/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.