[2010] KEHC 1983 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1983 (KLR)

The court held that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to tax party and party costs in the detailed manner of the High Court, as there is no provision for such taxation under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Instead, subordinate courts are to assess costs strictly in accordance with Schedule VII. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 65(2) of the Constitution, is empowered to review and set aside assessments that do not conform to the law. In this case, the subordinate court's assessment included items not allowed under Schedule VII and awarded an instruction fee in excess of what was permitted. The High Court therefore set aside the assessment and...

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1983 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Angelo Gitonga; Defendant: Angelo Gitonga; Defendant: A. Mutiga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Reference / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; subordinate court's assessment of costs set aside and substituted with correct amount.
Legal Topics
Costs Taxation, Party and Party Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Assessment of Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation Party and Party Costs Advocates Remuneration Order Supervisory Jurisdiction Assessment of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angelo Gitonga

Plaintiff

Angelo Gitonga

Defendant

A. Mutiga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Reference / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subordinate court has jurisdiction to tax party and party costs in the manner of the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction to review or set aside such taxation or assessment by a subordinate court.
  3. 3 Whether the bill of costs assessed by the subordinate court conformed to Schedule VII of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to tax party and party costs in the detailed manner of the High Court, as there is no provision for such taxation under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Instead, subordinate courts are to assess costs strictly in accordance with Schedule VII. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 65(2) of the Constitution, is empowered to review and set aside assessments that do not conform to the law. In this case, the subordinate court's assessment included items not allowed under Schedule VII and awarded an instruction fee in excess of what was permitted. The High Court therefore set aside the assessment and...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; subordinate court's assessment of costs set aside and substituted with correct amount.

Orders

  • The costs assessed by SRMCC Tigania No. 92 of 2006 are set aside.
  • The costs of Angelo Gitonga in that case are taxed at Kshs. 89,580/=