[2011] KEHC 3921 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order by not obtaining and attaching the taxing officer's reasons for the taxation. Without these reasons, the court could not properly consider or determine the merits of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3921 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Edwin K Njagi t/a E.K. Njagi & Co. Advocates; Applicant: Lucy Waithera Mwangi; Applicant: John Irungu Githinji; Applicant: Julius Kariuki Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 516 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons Seeking to Set Aside Taxation of Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Reference to Judge, Procedure for Objection, Bill of Costs, Enlargement of Time
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edwin K Njagi t/a E.K. Njagi & Co. Advocates
Respondent
Lucy Waithera Mwangi
Applicant
John Irungu Githinji
Applicant
Julius Kariuki Mwangi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons Seeking to Set Aside Taxation of Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside the taxing officer's decision was properly before the court in the absence of the taxing officer's reasons.
- 2 Whether the applicants followed the correct procedure under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order before filing the reference.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order by not obtaining and attaching the taxing officer's reasons for the taxation. Without these reasons, the court could not properly consider or determine the merits of the objections raised. The application was therefore premature and incompetent, and was struck out with costs to the respondent. The applicants were advised that they may apply for enlargement of time to file a proper reference once the necessary procedural steps are complied with.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application is struck out with costs to the respondent.
- Applicants are at liberty to file a formal application for enlargement of time under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION – MILIMANI
MISC APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2009
EDWIN K NJAGI T/AE.K. NJAGI & CO. ADVOCATES ..........................................RESPONDENT
VERSUS
LUCY WAITHERA MWANGI........................................................................................APPLICANTS
JOHN IRUNGU GITHINJI.....................
JULIUS KARIUKI MWANGI………………………
RULING
This application is brought by way of a Chamber Summons dated 9th July, 2010, and taken out under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The applicants thereby seek orders that –
(1)The decision of the taxing master on the Bill of Costs dated 12th May, 2009 and amended on 2nd December, 2009 and the resultant certificate of costs be set aside.
(2)In the alternative, the decision of the taxing officer on certain specified items of the Advocate/Respondent’s bill of costs be set aside.
(3)The Bill be referred back for fresh taxation under a different taxing officer with appropriate directions.
(4)That the costs of this application be provided for.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Lucy Waithera, one of the Applicants, and is based on the grounds that –
(a)The taxing officer erred in allowing the bill at Kshs 32,447,332/-.
(b)The taxing officer fell in error in stating that the value of subject matter could be determined from the pleadings and in his determination thereof.
(c)The taxing officer exercised his discretion improperly in increasing the instruction fees to Kshs 5,000,000 as there is no justification for such an increase.
(d)That the suit was referred to arbitration even before the pleadings were closed and had not been fixed for hearing to warrant getting up fees of Kshs 1,666,66/- allowed under item 2.
(e)The taxing officer was manifestly in error in allowing further instruction fees of Kshs 5,000,000/- under item 40 when the same was part of instruction fees already charged under item 1 of the bill.
(f)That the suit upon being referred to arbitration could not attract further instruction fees which was allowed by the taxing officer at Kshs 5,000,000.
(g)That the taxing officer fell in error in allowing items not provided for in the remuneration order.
(h)That the taxing officer fell in error by disregarding submissions in opposition to the bill and allowing all other items as drawn stating that the same are “… largely drawn to scale”. The said items are not drawn to scale as evident from submissions in opposition to the bill on 16th December, 2008.
(i)The taxing officer erred in allowing as drawn several items in the bill when the same were disputed and were not drawn to scale under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
(j)The taxing officer erred in allowing as drawn disputed items for perusal without production of the documents perused or certificate thereof despite the applicants request for the same.
(k)The taxing officer erred in allowing several disputed items of disbursements in the bill without production of documents and/or receipts to authenticate the same.
(l)The bill as taxed by the taxing officer is manifestly excessive and unjust.
The application is opposed by the replying affidavit of Edwin K Njagi, Advocate, sworn on 30th September, 2010.
Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order under which the reference is brought provides that –
“11. (1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxingofficer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
(2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forwardto the objector the reasons for his decision on thoseitems and the objector may within fourteen daysfrom the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge bya chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of hisobjection.”
On 17th June, 2010, the Applicants gave notice of objection to the decision on taxation on certain specified items and requested the taxing officer’s reasons for his decision on those items for purposes of reference to a Judge. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have followed up the issue of the taxing officer’s reasons for the taxation. Consequently, the said reasons are not attached to the application and it is not possible for this court either to agree or disagree with the taxing officer in the absence of those reasons.
I therefore find that this application was brought to court prematurely and the Applicants ought to have pressed for the reasons before filing the reference. For these reasons, the application is struck out with costs.
The Applicants are at liberty to file a formal application under Paragraph 11 (4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order for enlargement of time within which to file an appropriate reference incorporating all the relevant documents.
DATED and DELIVEREDatNAIROBI this 22nd day of February, 2011
L NJAGI
JUDGE