[2019] KEHC 9691 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing officer had made several errors of principle in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs, as previously determined in a related matter (Misc Application No. 33 of 2017). The court reiterated its earlier reasoning, holding that such errors justified setting aside the taxation. However,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9691 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mumias Sugar Company Limited; Respondent: Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Ruling
- Outcome
- Reference allowed; taxing officer's ruling set aside; bill of costs to be re-taxed by a different officer; costs of reference to applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Remuneration Order, Reference Procedure
- 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
Mumias Sugar Company Limited
Applicant
Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxing Officer's Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs.
- 2 Whether the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2017 should apply to this matter.
- 3 Whether the taxed bill quantum was correctly determined.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing officer had made several errors of principle in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs, as previously determined in a related matter (Misc Application No. 33 of 2017). The court reiterated its earlier reasoning, holding that such errors justified setting aside the taxation. However, the court distinguished the present case on the issue of the quantum of the taxed bill, indicating that the matter should be remitted for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer. The court thus set aside the previous ruling and directed that the bill of costs be re-taxed by another officer, awarding costs of the reference to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Reference allowed; taxing officer's ruling set aside; bill of costs to be re-taxed by a different officer; costs of reference to applicant.
Orders
- The ruling delivered by the taxing officer on 11th October 2017 is set aside.
- Costs of the reference are awarded to the client (applicant).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
MISCELLANEOUS APPL. NO. 48 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES ACT CAP 16 AND
THE ADVOCATES (REMUNERATION) ORDER, 2009
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES (REMUNERATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 2014
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATE-CLIENT BILL OF COSTS
BETWEEN
MUMIAS SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED...........................APPLICANT
AND
PROFESSOR TOM OJIENDA & ASSOCIATES.........RESPONDENT
[Being a Reference filed pursuant to the leave of court granted on 20th March, 2018 against
Hon. P.W. Mbulikah’s (the taxing officer’s) Ruling in Misc Application No. 48 of 2017]
RULING
The learned taxing officer did indicate that the Ruling which was delivered in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2017 was applicable to this matter as well.
1. In my Ruling on the Reference from that other Application, I held that the learned taxing officer had made several errors of principle.
2. Therefore, I do reiterate the reasoning in that Ruling herein, as if I had set it all out verbatim in this case, save on the issue as to the quantum of the taxed Bill.
3. Accordingly, the Ruling delivered by the learned taxing officer on 11th October 2017 is set aside.
4. Costs of the Reference are awarded to the client.
5. I direct that the Bill of Costs be accorded appropriate action by a taxing officer other than the one who had taxed it originally.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMU
This6thday of February2019
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE