[2009] KEHC 3129 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 3129 (KLR)

The court found that the Taxing Master erred by disallowing the 'getting up fees' due to a typographical error in the bill of costs, where 'letting up fees' was clearly intended to mean 'getting up fees.' The court held that such an error was manifest and should have been corrected under the Slip Rule. The Applicant was entitled to getting up fees, which by law is not less than one third of the instruction fees allowed. The court further held that the consent between the parties to tax off Kshs. 11,025 from items 2 to 79 was properly recorded and should have been given effect. The reference was the correct procedure for challenging the Taxing Master's decision on taxation, as the consent...

Citation
[2009] KEHC 3129 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Christopher Michael Strong; Defendant: Mwangi Mwaniki Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Case Number
Civil Suit 259 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Reference From Taxation / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Taxation recalculated. Costs of the reference awarded to the Applicant.
Judges
AI Tullu
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Reference From Taxing Master, Getting Up Fees, Consent Orders, Typographical Errors
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocates Remuneration Order Reference From Taxing Master Getting Up Fees Consent Orders Typographical Errors

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Michael Strong

Plaintiff

Mwangi Mwaniki Gitonga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Reference From Taxation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in disallowing 'getting up fees' due to a typographical error in the bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Master properly applied the consent of the parties in taxing off Kshs. 11,025 from items 2 to 79.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was entitled to bring a reference as opposed to seeking review of the consent order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master erred by disallowing the 'getting up fees' due to a typographical error in the bill of costs, where 'letting up fees' was clearly intended to mean 'getting up fees.' The court held that such an error was manifest and should have been corrected under the Slip Rule. The Applicant was entitled to getting up fees, which by law is not less than one third of the instruction fees allowed. The court further held that the consent between the parties to tax off Kshs. 11,025 from items 2 to 79 was properly recorded and should have been given effect. The reference was the correct procedure for challenging the Taxing Master's decision on taxation, as the consent...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Taxation recalculated. Costs of the reference awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • The order disallowing getting up fees is set aside.
  • The Applicant is awarded getting up fees at one third of the instruction fees, amounting to Kshs. 18,333.30.