SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Makomere t/a Wambeyi Makomere & Company Advocates v Boit (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1502 (KLR) (10 March 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEELC 1502 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1502
Citation
[2026] KEELC 1502 (KLR)
Decided
10 March 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication for Advocate-Client CostsCoramL. N. WAITHAKA
Holding

The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent as it is based on a misapprehension of law.

Facts

The applicant, Wambeyi Makomere, filed a motion application seeking to assess costs as advocate-client fees. The applicant had successfully defended and prosecuted a counterclaim in Eldama Ravine MCC 85 of 2014, and had taxed costs against the plaintiff at Kshs. 372,650. The respondent, Jackson Kipsang Boit, became evasive and recorded a consent with the judgment debtor.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's request to assess costs as advocate-client fees is valid.
  2. Whether the taxing master's assessment of party-party costs should be increased by one-half to determine advocate-client fees.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court has ruled that the jurisdiction to assess advocate-client fees lies with the taxing master, not the court. The taxing master exercises judicial discretion in determining fees, not simply multiplying party-party costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Prayers ii, iii, iv, and v in the application are dismissed.
  • Interest is not calculable due to lack of a bill of costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Airports Authority vs. Otieno Ragoti & Company Advocates, Supreme Court Petition No. E011 of 2023
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case