REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CITY

COURT NAME: MILIMANI LAW COURTS

CASE NUMBER: HCCOMMMISC/E386/2023

CITATION: DOREEN OKWIRI T/A OKWIRI & CO. ADVOCATES VS THE TRUSTEE REGISTERED
METHODIST CHURCH

RULING

RULING AND REASONS FOR TAXATION

Before me is an Advocate Client Bill of Costs dated 15 05.2023. The bill has been drawn at Kshs.
2,336,176.20/=. Service upon the Respondent was effected, and return of service has been filed
confirming the same.

The bill covers a period between 12.07.2014 to 16.11.2014. being a matter arising from professional
services rendered by the Applicant/Advocate in drafting a confidentiality and Non – Disclosure
Agreement. I find the proper remuneration is Schedule 5 of the Advocate Remuneration Order 2014
is the applicable basis for determining the bill.

Instructions fees

At item one, the Applicant is seeking Kshs. 2,000,000/= as instructions fees for services rendered in
drafting the Non-Disclosure Agreement involving a project with a subject value of Kshs.
200,000,000/=.

In determining the amount to award as instructions fees, I am guided by the case of Republic vs
The Minister for Agriculture Ex Parte W’Njuguna and Others [2006] 1 EA 359, the court
argued that;

1. The taxation of advocates’ instruction fees is to seek no more and no less than
reasonable compensation for professional work done;
2. The taxation of advocates’ instruction fees should avoid any prospect of unjust
enrichment for any particular party or parties.
3. So far as apposite, comparability should be applied in the assessment of advocates'
instruction fees;
4. Objectivity is to be sought when applying loose-texture criteria in the taxation of
costs;

The Judiciary of Kenya 1/3

Doc IDENTITY: 25000602221356919138820728914 Tracking
Number: OO9K482025
 5. Where complexity of proceedings is a relevant factor, firstly, the specific elements of
the same are to be identified and stated; and secondly, complexity is to be judged
based on the express or implied recognition and mode of treatment by the trial judge;
6. Where responsibility borne by advocates is taken into account, its nature is to be
specified;
7. Where novelty is taken into account, its nature is to be clarified;
8. Where account is taken of time spent, research done, skill deployed by counsel, the
pertinent details are to be set out in summarized from.

Similarly, in the case of Ratemo Oira & Co Advocates vs. Magereza Sacco Society Ltd., Civil
Appeal No. 75 of 2018; [2019] eKLR is that –

“Indeed, it is trite that an advocate is entitled to his fees once he is instructed, retained or
employed by a client… However, it must be noted that an Advocate will be entitled to
payment of a reasonable fee which is commensurate with the work done. The business of
taxation of costs must ensure a delicate balance between the guiding principles aptly
pronounced by the Premchand case which include: the “Court owes a duty to the general
public to see that costs are not allowed to rise to such a level as to deprive of access to
Courts but the worthy” and “the general level of the remuneration must be such as to
attract worthy recruits to the profession”. What is a reasonable fee in the circumstances
can only be adjudicated by a taxing master by application of his discretion. [Emphasis
added]

Under Schedule 5 part II Instruction Fees can be taxed having regard to the care and labour
required, the number and length of papers to be perused, nature or importance of the matter, the
amount of value of the subject matter involved, interest of the parties, complexity of the matter and
all other circumstances the case, may be fair and reasonable.

In this case, while the value of the project is Kshs. 200,000,000.00, the Applicant’s suggested
instruction fee of Kshs. 2,000,000/- seems excessive when assessed against the relevant guidelines.
Firstly, although the drafting of the Non-Disclosure Agreement was significant, they were not
particularly complex, and there is no indication that the legal issues involved demanded exceptional
skill or effort beyond what is typically expected from an advocate of the Applicant’s caliber.

Secondly, while the value of the subject matter is considerable, instruction fees should not be based
solely on this factor; they must also take into account the overall scope of work performed.
Moreover, the effort and time invested have been carefully evaluated. Based on the records, the
number and length of documents reviewed, the level of preparation needed, and the duration of the
arbitration proceedings do not support the amount requested. This court must ensure that the fees
awarded are fair and reasonable, benefiting both the advocate and the client, as the Respondent
should not face an undue financial strain.

Taking all these factors into account, I find that an instruction fee of Kshs. 1,000,000/= is reasonable
and adequately compensates the Applicant for the professional services rendered. Accordingly, I tax
off Kshs. 1,000,000/- from the amount claimed under instruction fees.

Correspondence:

Under Schedule 5, Paragraph 5 for correspondence at Kshs. 200/= per folio and receiving and
Perusing correspondence at Kshs. 70/= per folio.

I find items 3,4,6, and 8 are not drawn to scale, thus I tax at Kshs. 200/- per folio, totaling Kshs.
1,000/=

The Judiciary of Kenya 2/3

Doc IDENTITY: 25000602221356919138820728914 Tracking
Number: OO9K482025
I find item 2 not drawn to scale, thus I tax at Kshs. 70/= per folio, totaling to Kshs. 140/=

Perusing

Schedule 5 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 provides for perusal at Kshs. 70 per folio

I find item 5 not drawn to scale, thus I tax at Kshs 70 per Folio, totaling to Kshs. 840/=

Bill of costs

Under Schedule 5 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 does not provide for bill of costs. Thus
I find item 9,10,11 and 12 at a total of Kshs. 4,045/= is taxed off in its entirety.

The bill is taxed as follows;

Sub-Total: Kshs. 1,001,980. 00

Add 16% of Vat; Kshs. 160,316.00

TOTAL: Kshs. 1,162,296.00

The Applicant’s Advocate- Client bill of costs dated 15th May, 2023, is taxed at Kshs. 1,162,296.00

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS
20TH JUNE, 2025

CHEMBENI L ADISA

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

MILIMANI COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION

In the Presence of:

Kimathi for the Respondent

No appearance for the Applicant

CA Mwachia

Stay granted for 30days

SIGNED BY: HON. C.L. ADISA

THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA.

MILIMANI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL AND TAX
DATE: 2025-06-20 08:30:54+03

The Judiciary of Kenya 3/3

Doc IDENTITY: 25000602221356919138820728914 Tracking
Number: OO9K482025