[2018] KEHC 8150 (KLR)
The court found that the Taxing Officer erred in principle by allowing sums for items 57 and 65, which related to journeys already compensated under other items, resulting in double benefit to the advocate. Similarly, items 60 and 61 were taxed in error as only the advocate for the plaintiff attended court on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8150 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates; Applicant: Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Taxation Decision
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Review of Taxing Officer Decision
- 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
Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates
Respondent
Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Taxation Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing items 57, 60, 61, and 65 of the bill of costs.
- 2 Whether the sums allowed for the specified items resulted in double benefit to the advocate.
- 3 Whether the court should interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion under Rule 77 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Taxing Officer erred in principle by allowing sums for items 57 and 65, which related to journeys already compensated under other items, resulting in double benefit to the advocate. Similarly, items 60 and 61 were taxed in error as only the advocate for the plaintiff attended court on the relevant date. The court held that only in respect of these items was interference with the Taxing Officer's discretion justified. For the remaining items, the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in principle or justification for interference. The court upheld the Taxing Officer's discretion under Rule 77 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, noting that the decision not to...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part.
Orders
- The sum of Kshs. 4,500 on item 57 is taxed off.
- The sum of Kshs. 15,000 on item 65 is taxed off.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO 49 OF 2015
MURI MWANIKI & WAMITI ADVOCATES...........ADVOCATE/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
KENYA ORIENT INSURANCE LTD....................................CLIENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. This is a reference to this Court from a decision of the Taxing Officer on the Respondent’s bill of costs dated 22nd April, 2015. The Applicant’s Chamber Summons application dated 16th November, 2017 is brought under the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) order. It seeks the following orders:-
1. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review, set aside and/or vary the decision of the Taxing Master made on 20th February, 2017 in respect of items 57, 60, 65, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 102 and 103.
2. The costs of this application be in the cause
2. The motion is premised on the grounds on the body of the application and the supporting affidavit sworn by Peter M. Karanja on 16th November, 2017. Attached to the affidavit the Respondent’s bill of costs dated 22nd April, 2015; the applicant’s submission filed before the Taxing Master, the Taxing Master’s decision on Taxation, notice of objection on Taxation, letter requesting for reasons from the taxing master and the response thereof.
3. The application is opposed on the basis of grounds of a replying affidavit sworn by Martin G. Mwaniki on 5th December, 2017 in which it is stated that the Taxing Master’s discretion was exercised properly.
SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES
4. I have carefully considered the reference in the light of the affidavits and oral submissions for both parties made in Misc. Application No. 48 of 2015 which relates to the same parties. In determining, the reference, I shall deal with each item as presented in the reference.
i. No submission was made in support of the applicant’s opposition to items 27, 34, 40, 41, 44, 55, 58 and the decision of the Taxing Master on the same is upheld
ii. A perusal of the Taxing Master’s decision confirms that items 12, 45, 69, 73, 74, 80, 82 and 84 were taxed
iii. Although no decision was made on item 59, there is no evidence of any error in principle in taxing that item in the sum of Kshs. 90/-
iv. Items 57 and 65 are similar to items 59 and 69 in Misc. Application No. 48 of 2015 which the Taxing Master taxed at Ksh. 15,000/- each. The items relate to the same journeys in which the advocate attended court on 28th April, 2014 and 26th May, 2014. The taxation of items 59 and 69 benefits the advocate twice for the same journeys and therefore ought to be taxed off.
v. On item 60 and 61, the Taxing Master rightfully found that only Mr. Olel, advocate for the plaintiff attended court on 19th May, 2014 and therefore item 60 and 61 ought to have been taxed off.
vi. It was submitted that items 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 90, 91 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102 and 103 should be taxed off in accordance with the provisions of Rule 77 (i) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
5. Rule 77 (i) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (Order) provides as follows:
Where more than one-sixth taxed off
(1) If more than one-sixth of the total amount of a bill of costs, exclusive of court fees, be disallowed on taxation, the party presenting the bill for taxation may, in the discretion of the taxing officer, be disallowed the costs of such taxation.
(2) The decision of the taxing officer under this rule shall be final.
6. The operational word in rule 77 (1) of the Order is “MAY”. The Taxing Master in her discretion decided not to disallow the costs of the taxation and that decision is final under the provisions of rule 77 (2) of the Order.
7. I am well aware of the discretion given to the Taxing Officer in taxation matters under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010, and that this court should only interfere with that discretion if there is an error in principle, or if the sum arrived at was either so high or so low as to imply that the taxing officer applied the wrong principles.
8. I am satisfied that such is the case here only in respect of item 57, 60, 61 and 65. The applicant has not satisfied the court that interference with the Taxation on items 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 90, 91 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102 and 103 would be justified.
Decision
9. Accordingly, the applicant’s Chamber Summons application dated 16th November, 2017 is allowed in the following terms:
1. The sum of Kshs. 4,500/- on item 57 and Kshs. 15,000/- on item 65 are taxed off
2. The sum of Kshs. 8,000/- on item 60 and Kshs. 15,000/- on item 61 are taxed off
3. Costs shall be in the cause
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS8thDAY OFFebruary2018
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant - Felix & Caroline
Applicant -
Respondent -