[2024] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing officer correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Orders of 2006 and 2014, based on the period during which legal services were rendered. The applicants failed to demonstrate any error in principle by the taxing officer in the assessment of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Muthusi Kiminza; Applicant: Esther Waithiegeni Kiama; Applicant: Florence Mutisya; Applicant: Pamela Ogola Opiyo; Applicant: Joseph Dibworo; Applicant: Charles Muoki; Applicant: Andrew Kariuki Njoroge; Applicant: Jason Mwanzia; Applicant: Apollo Mwangi Njuguna; Applicant: Rahab Muthoni Mugambi; Applicant: Francis Mbuthia Mukuna; Applicant: Esther Waceke Mwangi; Defendant: Amboseli Court Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 643 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Remit Bill of Costs for Fresh Taxation
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Party and Party Costs, Reference From Taxation
- 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
Francis Muthusi Kiminza
Applicant
Esther Waithiegeni Kiama
Applicant
Florence Mutisya
Applicant
Pamela Ogola Opiyo
Applicant
Joseph Dibworo
Applicant
Charles Muoki
Applicant
Andrew Kariuki Njoroge
Applicant
Jason Mwanzia
Applicant
Apollo Mwangi Njuguna
Applicant
Rahab Muthoni Mugambi
Applicant
Francis Mbuthia Mukuna
Applicant
Esther Waceke Mwangi
Applicant
Amboseli Court Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Remit Bill of Costs for Fresh Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing the plaintiffs. party and party bill of costs.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs should be remitted for fresh taxation under the correct schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing officer correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Orders of 2006 and 2014, based on the period during which legal services were rendered. The applicants failed to demonstrate any error in principle by the taxing officer in the assessment of the bill of costs. Consequently, there was no basis for the court to interfere with the taxing officer's discretion or to remit the bill of costs for fresh taxation. The application was therefore dismissed as unmerited.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiffs. application to remit the bill of costs for fresh taxation is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
Kiminza & 11 others v Amboseli Court Limited (Environment & Land Case 643 of 2006) [2024] KEELC 4135 (KLR) (15 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 643 of 2006
LN Mbugua, J
May 15, 2024
Between
Francis Muthusi Kiminza
1st Applicant
Esther Waithiegeni Kiama
2nd Applicant
Florence Mutisya
3rd Applicant
Pamela Ogola Opiyo
4th Applicant
Joseph Dibworo
5th Applicant
Charles Muoki
6th Applicant
Andrew Kariuki Njoroge
7th Applicant
Jason Mwanzia
8th Applicant
Apollo Mwangi Njuguna
9th Applicant
Rahab Muthoni Mugambi
10th Applicant
Francis Mbuthia Mukuna
11th Applicant
Esther Waceke Mwangi
12th Applicant
and
Amboseli Court Limited
Defendant
Ruling
1. The Plaintiffs’ Chamber summons dated 17. 11. 2023 and amended on 12. 2.2024 is for determination. They seek orders that the Honourable court remits their bill of costs dated 2. 12. 2022 to the Deputy Registrar for fresh taxation, with directions that the taxation be in compliance with the provisions of schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 and Order 21 Rule 9 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Revised 2020). They also pray that costs be provided for.
2. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 1st Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit sworn on 17. 11. 2023. He avers that the taxing officer’s ruling dated 9. 11. 2023 on the Plaintiffs’ party and party bill of costs dated 2. 12. 2022 is not taxed as per scale under schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.
3. He points out that the said ruling failed to adhere to the established known principles of taxation, including the nature and importance of the matter and the general conduct of proceedings. He contends that the plaintiffs’ party and party bill of costs dated 2. 12. 2022 charged at ksh. 2,086,446. 60 /= should be taxed as drawn.
4. No response was filed in respect of the aforementioned application. The Plaintiffs’ complaint is that their party and party bill of costs dated 2. 12. 2022 is not taxed to scale under schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration order, 2014.
5. In Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board [2005] eKLR the Court stated that;“On reference to a Judge from the Taxation by the Taxing Officer, the Judge will not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Taxing Officer unless the Taxing Officer, erred in principle in assessing the costs.”
6. The question to determine is whether the taxing officer erred in principle in arriving at her decision of 9. 11. 2023 in which she applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2006 and 2014.
7. The record indicates that this suit was initiated by a plaint dated 6. 11. 2006 and amended on 15. 7.2010. Thus the legal regime governing the assessment of instruction fees was the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2006. For services rendered in 2006 to 2022, the 2014 and the 2006 remuneration order were applicable as appropriate. This is the position taken by the learned taxing officer.
8. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the taxing officer erred in principle. In the circumstances, their application is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Kokimbulu for PlaintiffM/s Mwangi holding brief for Macharia for DefendantCourt assistant: Eddel