[2024] KEHC 5208 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5208 (KLR)

The court found that the taxation of the bill of costs was undertaken in error because the taxing master did not provide sufficient justification for the amounts allowed or rejected, nor did she refer to the primary court file to verify the items in the bill. The court held that relying solely on Schedule 6 without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5208 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Pride Kings Security Services Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E101 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation and for Stay of Execution
Outcome
taxation and certificate of taxation set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Setting Aside Taxation, Certificate of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocate Client Bill Setting Aside Taxation Certificate of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates

Applicant

Pride Kings Security Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation and for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the taxation of the advocate's bill of costs was properly conducted and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of costs should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's application for stay of execution and setting aside of taxation should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxation of the bill of costs was undertaken in error because the taxing master did not provide sufficient justification for the amounts allowed or rejected, nor did she refer to the primary court file to verify the items in the bill. The court held that relying solely on Schedule 6 without proper scrutiny of the underlying documentation and reasons was insufficient. Consequently, the court set aside the taxation and certificate of taxation dated 26th October 2023 and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Registrar for reconsideration, with directions to address the procedural concerns raised in the ruling.

Court Disposition

taxation and certificate of taxation set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The taxation and certificate of taxation dated 26th October 2023 are set aside.
  • The file is remitted back to the Deputy Registrar to consider the matters raised in the ruling and to provide reasons for the observation regarding the appropriate forum.