Nderi v Syngenta Pollen Limited (Miscellaneous Application E292 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1942 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that when a case ends in dismissal, lawyers cannot use the original money claim to calculate instruction fees — the fees must be reassessed.
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 Master erred in principle by relying on the sum pleaded in the Statement of Claim to determine instruction fees notwithstanding that the suit had been dismissed
Key legal issues
#Whether instruction fees should be assessed by reference to the pleadings where the suit has been determined by judgment
The Taxing Master erred in principle by relying on the pleaded figure in a dismissed suit; after judgment, the judgment itself determines the value of the subject matter, and since the claim was dismissed, the value was not ascertainable, requiring exercise of discretion.
The court accepted the general rule in Joreth Limited and Kenya Airports Authority that value is drawn from pleadings, judgment or settlement. However, following Peter Muthoka and D. Njogu, once judgment is entered, recourse to pleadings is precluded because the judgment conclusively determines the claim's value. As the suit was dismissed, no value was ascertainable, so the Taxing Master should have exercised discretion; failing to consider this was an error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- Once judgment has been entered, the value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees is determined from the judgment, not the pleadings; only where the value is not so ascertainable may the Taxing Master exercise discretion.
- Where a suit is dismissed and the value of the subject matter cannot be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, the Taxing Master must exercise discretion considering the nature and importance of the cause, the interest of the parties and the general conduct of proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the assessment of instruction fees
- 2.The file to be placed before another Taxing Master of the court to assess the item on instruction fees afresh
- 3.No order as to costs of the Reference
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Master's decision under the ELRC procedure; specific provision not stated in the judgment
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.
Accordingly, I set aside the assessment of instruction fees in the matter.
I order that the file be placed before another Taxing Master of the court to assess the item on instruction fees afresh.
as soon as the court passes judgement on a claim, the value of the subject matter is to be ascertained by reference to the judgement, as opposed to the statement of claim
Just as one would not start with the pleadings in the face of a judgment, it is indubitable that one cannot start with the pleadings where there is a settlement
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nderi v Syngenta Pollen Limited (Miscellaneous Application E292 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1942 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Reference against taxation in Cause E009 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1942/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.