[2005] KEHC 825 (KLR)
The court held that the Taxing Officer erred by treating the application to enter judgment on an arbitration award as a suit, thereby awarding instruction and getting up fees at rates applicable to suits. Since the matter was a simple application and not a suit, the principles for taxing costs in suits did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 825 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenfit Limited; Respondent: Consolata Fathers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 7 December 2005
- Case Number
- ? 127 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Arbitration Awards, Bill of Costs, Principles of Taxation
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenfit Limited
Applicant
Consolata Fathers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in awarding instruction and getting up fees as if the matter was a suit rather than an application.
- 2 Whether the sums awarded for items 2 and 13 of the Bill of Costs were inordinately high and unwarranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Taxing Officer erred by treating the application to enter judgment on an arbitration award as a suit, thereby awarding instruction and getting up fees at rates applicable to suits. Since the matter was a simple application and not a suit, the principles for taxing costs in suits did not apply. The sums awarded for items 2 and 13 were found to be inordinately high and unwarranted. The court concluded that the Taxing Officer acted on wrong principles and arrived at an incorrect decision, necessitating the setting aside of the awards for those items and directing that they be taxed afresh in accordance with the correct principles.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Items 2 and 13 of the respondent's bill of costs to be taxed afresh applying the correct principles.
- Applicant awarded costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBIMisc Civ Cause 127 of 2002KENFIT LIMITED …………………………………….……...………… APPLICANTVERSUSCONSOLATA FATHERS …………………………………...………. RESPONDENT
RULING
In this application dated 17th December, 2004, the Applicant seeks to set aside the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 8th December, 2004 relating to items 2 and 13 of the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
The parties hereto submitted themselves to Arbitration. The same was heard, determined and the Award was issued. The Applicant then filed an application dated 8th February, 2002 under Section 36 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1995 “seeking an order to enter Judgment in favour of the Applicant in terms of the Arbitration Award”.
That was a simple “application” brought by way of a Notice of Motion. I have deliberately put the word application in quotes because that is exactly what it was – an “application”, not a suit. When that application was eventually withdrawn with costs to the Respondent, the latter proceeded to tax its bill of costs, in which it claimed Kshs.150,817. 85 for “instructions for opposing the suit”, and Kshs.50,273/= for “getting up” fees.
The Taxing Officer went ahead and awarded both these items, albeit at slightly reduced sums as if this was a “suit”, and as if she was taxing a bill arising out of a “suit”. She erred hugely in the process, as both awards are inordinately high and completely unwarranted. There was no suit – only an application to enter Judgment.
I am satisfied that the Taxing Officer here acted on wrong principles, and arrived at the wrong decision. This application dated 17th December, 2004 is allowed with costs, and I order that the aforesaid items 2 and 13 be taxed again applying the correct principles.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 7th day of December, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE