[2012] KEHC 465 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 465 (KLR)

The court found that the taxing officer had not provided reasons for the taxation decision as required under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, despite a formal request by the executor. Without such reasons, the executor was unable to file a reference to the High Court to challenge the taxation....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 465 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Derek Holmes (Executor of the Estate of Lt. Col. Kenneth Amber North); Respondent: Objectors/Respondents (unspecified)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 October 2012
Case Number
Succession Cause 272 of 1989
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Chamber Summons Challenging Taxation of Costs
Outcome
Application allowed. Taxation set aside. Bill of costs to be taxed afresh by another taxing officer.
Judges
CM Njagi
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Reference Procedure, Party and Party Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocates Remuneration Order Reference Procedure Party and Party Costs

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Holmes (Executor of the Estate of Lt. Col. Kenneth Amber North)

Applicant

Objectors/Respondents (unspecified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Chamber Summons Challenging Taxation of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing officer was required to provide reasons for the taxation decision as requested by the executor.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of reasons for taxation precludes the executor from filing a reference to the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the taxation should be set aside and the bill of costs taxed afresh by another taxing officer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing officer had not provided reasons for the taxation decision as required under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, despite a formal request by the executor. Without such reasons, the executor was unable to file a reference to the High Court to challenge the taxation. The absence of reasons placed the executor in a prejudicial position, effectively denying the right to challenge the taxation. In the interests of justice, and given the prolonged delay of over two years without a response, the court set aside the taxation and ordered that the bill of costs be taxed afresh by another taxing officer.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Taxation set aside. Bill of costs to be taxed afresh by another taxing officer.

Orders

  • The taxation by the taxing master on 5th March, 2009 is set aside.
  • The objectors/respondents' party to party bill of costs shall be taxed by another taxing officer.