[2015] KEELRC 750 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing master erred in applying paragraph 1(b) of Schedule VI of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 to a Notice of Motion that was not equivalent to the institution of a fresh suit. The court held that the appropriate fee should have been lower, as the application was disposed of by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 750 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Entertainment and Music Industry Employees; Respondent: Vanguard Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 842 (N) of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Application / Ruling on Taxation
- Outcome
- Bill of Costs taxed and allowed in the revised sum of Kshs 31,815.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Getting Up Fees, Notice of Motion, Court Attendance, Bill of Costs
- 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
Kenya Union of Entertainment and Music Industry Employees
Applicant
Vanguard Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Application / Ruling on Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing master applied the correct provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order in taxing the Bill of Costs.
- 2 Whether getting up fees were properly awarded in the absence of a full trial.
- 3 Whether the amounts allowed for specific items in the Bill of Costs were justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing master erred in applying paragraph 1(b) of Schedule VI of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 to a Notice of Motion that was not equivalent to the institution of a fresh suit. The court held that the appropriate fee should have been lower, as the application was disposed of by written submissions and did not warrant the higher costs allowed. Regarding getting up fees, the court determined that since there was no full trial, only a reduced fee was justified. The court also reviewed and adjusted the amounts allowed for other items in the Bill of Costs, ensuring that only reasonable and legally justifiable sums were awarded. The aggregate amount allowed on...
Court Disposition
Bill of Costs taxed and allowed in the revised sum of Kshs 31,815.
Orders
- Costs under Item 2 reduced to Kshs 10,000.
- Getting up fees under Item 3 reduced to Kshs 8,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
CAUSE NO 842 (N) OF 2010
KENYA UNION OF ENTERTAINMENT AND MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES...CLAIMANT
Versus
VANGUARD LIMITED..........................................................................................RESPONDENT
Mr Mugu for Respondent/Applicant
Muigai for Grievant/ Interested Parties
RULING ON TAXATION
1. This Application challenges the Ruling on the taxation of the Bill of Costs dated 28th October, 2013 on 30th May, 2014 in favour of the Grievants/Respondents in the sum of Kshs 89,285.
2. Items 2,3,6,9,11 and the aggregate amount allowed on taxation is challenged.
Item 2
3. Is challenged on the basis that the taxing master ought to have relied on schedule VI paragraph 1(o), (vi) under the Advocates Remuneration order 2009 and not schedule VI paragraph 1(b).
4. This is because paragraph 1(b) deals with costs for the institution of fresh suit whereas the item related to a Notice of Motion Application dated 30th May, 2013 which Application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The Tax master allowed Kshs 49,000 under paragraph 1(b) when she ought to have allowed Kshs 3,000. The applicant offered to pay Kshs 4,500 however and not Kshs 49,000.
5. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 23rd July, 2014 and submits that the matter turns only on the meaning of ‘proceedings’ Under Rule 1(a) and (b) of Schedule VI (whether commenced by way of plaint, originating summons or as in this case by way of Notice of Motion).
6. Provisions of paragraph 1(o) (vi) apply to applications made during the pendency of the suit (interlocutory applications).
7. This Application was filed after the suit had been heard and determined by a party who was not in the original suit. This matter could have been commenced by way of a plaint by the grievants against the Claimant who had converted their money into its own use and had refused to hand over the money to the grievants.
8. The Respondent submits that the provision of paragraph 1(o) (vi) do not apply in the circumstances. The Respondent indeed argues that the costs allowed were indeed too little.
9. I find that the Notice of Motion was not necessitated by the conduct of the Applicant but by the Claimant after the matter had been heard and determined. It is therefore not right to visit the huge costs of Kshs 49,000 on the Applicant and the court reduces the costs allowed to Kshs 10,000 in place of 49,000 since it was a notice of motion Application dealt with by way of written submissions and cannot be equated to a fresh suit.
Item 3
10. The Applicant submitted that the Taxing master allowed Kshs 16,000 in respect of getting up fees. Getting up fees is payable when a matter proceeds to full trial which entails preparations of witnesses, written statements, lists of documents and written submissions. See Nakuru HCCC No 1 of 2009 Ramesh N. Patel Vs Attorney General and Another. In this case there was no trial. Two applications were filed and were both disposed of by way of affidavit evidence. Therein therefore no basis for the award of getting up fees.
11. The Court agrees with these submissions and takes off the sum of Kshs 16,000. However, even conduct of a suit by way of Affidavit evidence and written submissions though entails lighter work, entails some preparation and getting up. Accordingly I replace the allowed amount of Kshs 16,000 with Kshs 8,000
Item 6
12. The Application dated 29. 5.2013 was never served on the Applicant and was never heard. The court finds that no amount is allowable under this claim.
Items 9 and 11
13. The Court finds no reason to interfere with allowed sum of Kshs 21,000 in respect of court attendance on two occasions.
Item 19 to 23
14. The Court finds no fault on the amount’s allowed. Computation of the aggregate amount is revised as follows:
Under Item 2 10,000
Under Item 3 8,000
Under Item 6 735
Under Item 9 2,100
Under Item 10 840
Under item 11 2,100
Under Item 13 840
Under Item 15 2,100
Under Item 19 to 23 5,100
Total 31,815
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 3rd Day of July 2015.
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE