Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 991 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The ELRC at Nakuru set aside a taxed legal fee ruling, confirming that a case's value can be read from pleadings, not just settlement orders.
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 erred in principle in holding the value of the subject matter unascertainable
- 2.Whether the 50% increase was wrongly applied to instructions fees alone rather than the whole taxed amount
- 3.Whether VAT was rightly charged on instructions fees alone
- 4.Whether the getting-up fees and instructions fees were lawful and appropriate
- 5.Whether the ruling of the Taxing Officer should be set aside and the Bill re-taxed
Key legal issues
#Ascertainability of the value of the subject matter
The value was ascertainable from the pleadings, where the Claimant pursued gratuity of Kshs. 1,223,827
The Taxing Officer relied only on the consent order, which did not state the settlement sum. The Court held the pleaded claim provided a specific value, making the finding of unascertainability an error of principle. Correspondence and communication indicated the settlement sum of Kshs. 1,313,921 was paid to the Claimant.
Errors of principle in taxation
Errors of principle existed, warranting re-taxation, and both parties agreed the ruling should be set aside
Both the Advocate and the Client, though ostensibly on opposite sides, submitted that the Taxing Officer misdirected herself in law and principle, including on the 50% increase and VAT application. The Court accepted the consensus and set the ruling aside, while observing the sum taxed was not inordinately high or low.
Commissioning of affidavits
Commissioners for Oaths must not obliterate details on affidavits when commissioning them
The Client's affidavit bore the Commissioner for Oaths' stamp and signature over the date, obscuring the month it was sworn. The Court cautioned against this practice, though it did not affect the determination, which proceeded on affidavits and submissions by consent.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation may be ascertained from the pleadings, not only from a consent order
- A court cannot decline consensual orders agreed to by the parties
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is allowed and the Ruling of the Taxing Officer set aside by consent of the Parties, as expressed in their respective Submissions
- 2.The Advocates to consult and agree on settlement of the Bill of Costs out of Court
- 3.Failing that agreement, the Bill of Costs shall be re-taxed by a different Taxing Officer
- 4.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling on an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs, under the applicable costs taxation framework of this Court
Relief refused
#Direct judicial determination of the quantum of fees
The Court encouraged consensual settlement rather than another round of judicial consideration
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 value of the subject matter was ascertainable from the pleadings.
Both Parties therefore agree, that the Ruling of the Taxing Master should be set aside, and this Court cannot, in all fairness, decline orders sought consensually by the Parties.
The reference is allowed and the Ruling of the Taxing Oficer set aside by consent of the Parties, as expressed in their respective Submissions.
Failing that agreement, the Bill of Costs shall be re-taxed by a difierent Taxing Oficer.
Commissioners for Oaths should be cautious, in commissioning documents, not to do so in a way that obliterates details, from the Afidavit.
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling date inconsistency: paragraph 1 states the ruling was delivered on 10th March 2023, while paragraph 12 refers to 'the Ruling delivered on 9th July 2024'
The date the Client's affidavit was sworn is obscured by the Commissioner for Oaths' stamp
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Reference dated 6th August 2024 (relating to Advocate-Client Bill of Costs taxed at Kshs. 304,213). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/991/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.