[2018] KEHC 609 (KLR)
The court found that the application to set aside, review, or vary the taxing master's ruling admitting the further affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles had no merit. The issues raised in the affidavit were relevant to the taxation proceedings, and if the advocate was aggrieved by the outcome of the taxation, the proper...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 609 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eliab Muturi Mwangi; Respondent: LSG Lufthansa Service Europa/Afrika; Respondent: LSG Sky Chefs Kenya Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 611 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Master's Decision Admitting Further Affidavit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the client
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Admission of Affidavits, Advocate Client Disputes
- 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
Eliab Muturi Mwangi
Applicant
LSG Lufthansa Service Europa/Afrika
Respondent
LSG Sky Chefs Kenya Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Master's Decision Admitting Further Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing master erred in admitting the further affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles filed by the client during taxation proceedings.
- 2 Whether the application to set aside, review, or vary the taxing master's ruling was premature before taxation of the bill of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to set aside, review, or vary the taxing master's ruling admitting the further affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles had no merit. The issues raised in the affidavit were relevant to the taxation proceedings, and if the advocate was aggrieved by the outcome of the taxation, the proper remedy would be to file a reference before the High Court after taxation. The court also held that Dr. Zilles' affidavit was not entirely based on information from others, as he demonstrated personal knowledge of international billing practices. Therefore, the application was dismissed as premature and lacking in merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the client
Orders
- The chamber summons dated 27th February 2017 is dismissed with costs to the client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.611 OF 2014
ELIAB MUTURI MWANGI......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
LSG LUFTHANSA SERVICE EUROPA/AFRIKA
LSG SKY CHEFS KENYA LTD.........................................RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. There is pending in this matter a bill of costs which has not yet been taxed. It is Advocate/Client Bill of costs filed by the advocate Eliab Muturi Mwangi practicing under the name Muturi Mwangi & Associates Advocates. The Bill of cost was filed in court on 19th December 2014. It has indeed taken inordinately long to be taxed. Part of the reason is that the taxing master was called upon to Rule on preliminary objection raised by the client. The Ruling was delivered on 18th July 2016.
2. The taxing master gave leave to the client the file a replying affidavit and to file written submissions.
3. The client filed an affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles on 9th December 2016. The advocate responded by his own affidavit, submissions and authorities on 26th January 2017.
4. Taxation was then fixed on 6th February 2017. On that date it transpired that the client had filed on 3rd February 2017 an affidavit of Stephen Zilles.
5. On 6th February 2017, after the taxing must heard submissions from the client and the advocate, on whether to admit the second affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles, the taxing master admitted that affidavit and granted the advocate 14 days to respond.
6. The advocates has filed a chamber summons dated 27thFebruary 2017 seeking this court do vacate, review, vary and/or set aside the taxing master’s Ruling of 13th February 2017 by which the taxing master admitted into the record the further affidavit of Dr. Stephen Zilles, of 3rd February 2017.
7. The affidavit in support of that application is sworn by the advocate.
8. The ground for seeking vacation, review or variation of the taxing master’s ruling is that Dr. Zilles’ affidavit relies on matter on commercial transaction work which he obtained from advocate Paras Shah. The advocates in this regard deponed:
“THAT in essence, therefore, Dr. Zilles’ deposition on the issue of industry practice is really the evidence of Mr. Paras Shah. In truth, this deposition by Dr. Zilles is in fact a mask which he holds before this Honorable Court’s face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity by introducing the inadmissible evidence of Mr. Paras Shah ‘through back door’.
THAT further to the foregoing, paragraph 17 of Dr. Zilles’ further affidavit is based on the advice of Mr. Cecil Kuyo, “an advocate in the firm of the Coulson Harney”. Based on Mr. Kuyo’s advice, Dr. Zilles deposes that the Advocates Remuneration Order “does not incorporate the [supposed] international standards of charging fees.”
9. The application was opposed by the client on the basis that the application was premature and offends paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order because the Bill of costs is yet to be taxed.
DETERMINATION
10. Having considered the application and the supporting affidavit and having considered Dr. Zilles further affidavit I find that the application has no merit. It has no merit because the issues deponed to by Dr. Zilles are pertinent during taxation and if indeed the advocate is aggrieved with that taxation he will have a right to file a reference before the High court.
11. The advocate is also not entirely right to submit that the matters Dr. Zilles deponed to, that they were not from his own knowledge. Looking at paragraph 6 of that further affidavit the deponent state:
“I am aware that the prevailing international practice for charging legal fees in respect of transactional work is by time-based billing.”
12. From the above it will be seen that the deponent, even though in part he relied on advise, that he also had personal knowledge.
13. For the above reason the chamber summons dated 27th February 2017 is dismissed with costs to the client.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this29thday of November,2018.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Ruling read and delivered in open court in the presence of:
Court Assistant...................Sophie
........................................... for the Applicant
........................................... for the Respondents
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE