[2018] KEHC 2742 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2742 (KLR)

The court found that the Advocates' application was merited as the Taxing Officer failed to apply the correct principles in assessing the Bill of Costs, particularly regarding the value of the subject matter. Given that the application was unopposed and the Advocates were not averse to a reassessment by a new Taxing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2742 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates; Respondent: James Kamau Njendu t/a Githutho Associates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Set Aside Taxation Decision
Outcome
application allowed; previous taxation set aside; bill of costs remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer; no order as to costs
Judges
CM Kamau
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill of Costs, Remuneration Order, Setting Aside Taxation, Reassessment of Fees
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Advocate Client Bill of Costs Remuneration Order Setting Aside Taxation Reassessment of Fees

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates

Applicant

James Kamau Njendu t/a Githutho Associates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Set Aside Taxation Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Officer's decision on the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Bill of Costs should be reassessed by the court or remitted to a different Taxing Officer.
  3. 3 Whether the value of the subject matter was properly considered in determining the instruction fee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Advocates' application was merited as the Taxing Officer failed to apply the correct principles in assessing the Bill of Costs, particularly regarding the value of the subject matter. Given that the application was unopposed and the Advocates were not averse to a reassessment by a new Taxing Officer, the court determined it was in the interests of justice to set aside the previous taxation decision and remit the Bill of Costs for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Master.

Court Disposition

application allowed; previous taxation set aside; bill of costs remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Officer; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The Taxing Master's decision delivered on 18th August 2017 in respect of the Advocates' Bill of Costs dated 23rd February 2016 is set aside.
  • The Advocates' Bill of Costs dated 23rd February 2016 is remitted for taxation before any Taxing Master in the High Court Milimani Law Courts Civil Division other than the original Taxing Master.