[2016] KEHC 8032 (KLR)
The court found that both parties agreed the only disputed amount was Ksh.98,500/=. Rather than remit the entire Bill of Costs for re-taxation, the court determined that it was appropriate and supported by Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to deduct the disputed sum from the total taxed amount. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8032 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Bruce Dominic Odhiambo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 40 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- application partly successful
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Setting Aside Taxation, Bill of Costs, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Koki Mbulu & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Bruce Dominic Odhiambo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer misdirected herself and erred in principle in taxing the Bill of Costs.
- 2 Whether the decision of the taxing officer should be set aside and the Bill of Costs remitted for fresh taxation.
- 3 Whether only the disputed amount should be deducted from the taxed sum instead of a full re-taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both parties agreed the only disputed amount was Ksh.98,500/=. Rather than remit the entire Bill of Costs for re-taxation, the court determined that it was appropriate and supported by Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to deduct the disputed sum from the total taxed amount. The decision of the taxing officer was therefore set aside, and the Bill of Costs was taxed at Ksh.228,520/=. Costs of the application were awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application partly successful
Orders
- The decision of the taxing officer dated 21st April, 2016 is set aside.
- The Advocate Client Bill of Costs is taxed at Ksh228,520/=.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC. APPL.CASE NO. 40 OF 2016
KOKI MBULU & CO. ADVOCATES.....................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
BRUCE DOMINIC ODHIAMBO.........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 6th May, 2016 seeks orders that:-
“1. THAT this Honourable court be pleased to set aside the decision of the taxing officer under order dated 21st day of April 2016
2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to remit the Bill of Costs dated 1st day of February 2016 to the Deputy Registrar for fresh taxation, with directions on the conduct of the taxation.
3. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for.”
2. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the Bill of Costs dated 1st February, 2016 was taxed on the 18th April, 2016 under the provisions of Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. That the taxing officer taxed the bill of costs at Kshs.327,020/=. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the decision of the taxing officer, hence this application. The Applicants contention is that the taxing officer misdirected herself and erred in principle and failed to exercise her discretion judicially in accordance with the established principles of law.
3. The application is opposed. It is deposed in the replying affidavit that the sum objected to is the increase by ½ of Ksh.197,000/= which comes to ksh.98,500/=. That in the premises the amount that is not disputed plus VAT of Kshs31,520/= ought to be paid pending the determination of the propriety and legality of the sum of Ksh. 98,500/=.
4. During the hearing of the application, the counsels for the respective parties herein made oral submissions which I have duly considered.
5. Both counsels herein are in agreement that the disputed amount is the sum of Ksh.98,500/=. Both counsels are also in agreement that the said amount of Ksh.98,500/= can be subtracted from the total of Ksh.327,020/= instead of remitting the entire Bill of costs for re-taxation. The position taken by the counsels is supported by the provisions of Schedule V of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Consequently, I proceed to deduct the said sum of Ksh.98,500 from the taxed amount, which brings the total to Ksh228,520/=.
6. With the foregoing, the application is partly successful. The decision of the taxing officer dated 21st April, 2016 it is hereby set aside and the Advocate Client Bill of Costs is taxed at Ksh228,520/=. Costs of the application to the Applicant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of August, 2016
B THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE