1.The Applicant filed a Chamber Summons dated 18th August 2021 brought under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Application was supported by the grounds on the face of it and the sworn Affidavit of Edward Nyingi Mukundi who sought for orders that;
2.The applicant stated that the Deputy Registrar erred in law by failing to state or set out on record the amount of basic instruction fee and how he exercised his wide discretion to enhance it or otherwise
3.Further, that the Deputy Registrar erred in law when he returned an instruction fee of Kshs.655 ,000/ = which is way below the basic instruction fee under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order of 17th November 2006.
4.The Deputy Registrar erred in law by failing to demonstrate sufficiently or at all how he exercised his judicial discretion when determining instruction fee.
5.The Applicant stated that the Deputy Registrar erred in law by failing to consider sufficiently or at all the value of the property at the time when the final property rights of the parties to the dispute was determined and disregarded the valuation report on record.
6.The Applicant was directed to file written submissions. The application was unopposed. Hereunder is a summary of the submissions;
7.The Applicant submitted that that the Taxing Master erred in principle when assessing the amount payable as instruction fee and getting up fee and invites the court to step in and correct the error of principle by setting aside the Taxing Master's decision on these two items.
9.The Applicant was aggrieved by the demonstrable fact that the Taxing Master erred in principle when he failed to determine on record the basic instruction fee and how he exercised his wide discretion to either increase or decrease the basic instruction fee.
10.It was the Applicant’s contention that after settling on the pleaded but historical purchase price of Kshs.30 Million as the value of the subject property the Taxing Master stated simply thus: "The instruction fees on this figure is Kshs.655, 000/=" Without demonstrating on record how he arrived at the said figure.
11.It is the Applicant's prayer that the Court sets aside the Taxing Officer's finding on instruction fee and getting up fee and refer these two items for reconsideration with appropriate directions on factors to consider when exercising direction on whether or not to increase or decrease the basic instruction fee as is well explained by the plethora of judicial authorities on this point.
Issues for Determination
12.The court has considered the Application and the Applicant’s written submissions and has framed only one issue for determination;
AnalysisWhether the court should set aside and/or review the Taxing Officer's finding on instruction fee and getting up fee;
13.It was the Applicant’s case that the Deputy Registrar erred in law when he returned an instruction fee of Kshs.655 ,000/ = which is way below the basic instruction fee under schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order of 17th November 2006.
14.It is trite law that a Court interferes with the decision of the Taxing Officer where there has been an error in principle and will intervene only in exceptional cases as was held in Joreth Limited vs. Kigano & Associates  1 EA 92 at 99 where the Court of Appeal stated;
15.The Applicant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Registrar applied the proper charging schedule of the Order, Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(b) which provides, inter alia, that:
16.Further to the above, the value of the subject matter is not disputed and it stands at Kshs.30, 000,000. The point of contention is how the Deputy Registrar arrived at the figure of Kshs.655, 000 as the instruction fees.
17.It is noteworthy that the Deputy Registrar’s ruling of 22nd June 2021 does not contain the reasons as to how and why the said figure was arrived at.
18.The court in Republic v Medical Practitioners & Dentist Board & 2 others Ex-parte: Mary A. Omamo-Nyamogo  eKLR faced with a similar issued stated as follows;
19.Going by the above schedule, it is this courts considered view that there was no error as to principle as the Deputy Registrar correctly used the value of the property when coming up with the figure for the instruction fees and the getting up fees. This court finds that the amount awarded was not manifestly excessive or low as to justify interference by this Court.
Findings and Determination
20.For those reasons this court makes the following findings and determination;Orders Accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022.HON. A. MSHILAJUDGEIn the presence of;Barbara Auma for Mungla for the 2nd Defendant/ApplicantNo appearance for the Respondent/PlaintiffLucy---------------------------Court Assistant