[2018] KEELC 340 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 340 (KLR)

The court found that the conveyancing transaction between the parties was not completed, as none of the relevant documents (agreements for sale, charge, debenture) were executed by the parties. Accordingly, the applicant was not entitled to scale fees under Schedule 1 but only to fees for work actually done, as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 340 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Maina Murage & Company Advocates; Respondent: Mae Properties Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 1519 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs After Appellate Proceedings
Outcome
Applicant's bill of costs taxed and allowed in part.
Judges
AK Bor
Legal Topics
Advocate Remuneration, Conveyancing Fees, Uncompleted Transactions, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Advocate Remuneration Conveyancing Fees Uncompleted Transactions Taxation of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maina Murage & Company Advocates

Applicant

Mae Properties Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs After Appellate Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to scale fees or only fees for work done in an uncompleted conveyancing transaction.
  2. 2 Whether instruction fees can be charged multiple times for related documents in the same transaction.
  3. 3 What is the proper basis and quantum for taxing the advocate's bill of costs in light of the Court of Appeal's findings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conveyancing transaction between the parties was not completed, as none of the relevant documents (agreements for sale, charge, debenture) were executed by the parties. Accordingly, the applicant was not entitled to scale fees under Schedule 1 but only to fees for work actually done, as provided under Schedule V of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 1997. The court further held that instruction fees could only be charged once, not separately for each document, in line with the Court of Appeal's decision in Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates. The court assessed the instruction fee at KShs. 5,400,000, taxed the drawing of documents per folio as prescribed, and...

Court Disposition

Applicant's bill of costs taxed and allowed in part.

Orders

  • The applicant's bill of costs dated 20th December 2001 is taxed at KShs. 6,270,542.40.
  • Disbursement claims without receipts or specific details are disallowed.