[2016] KEHC 421 (KLR)
The court held that the taxing officer's jurisdiction is confined to the taxation of costs and does not extend to determining whether the advocate's bill of costs is statute-barred or whether the advocate is estopped from claiming further costs. Such fundamental issues, including the existence of costs due, must be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 421 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Mwangi Kengara & Company Advocates; Applicant: Invesco Assurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 59 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer Regarding Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion to proceed to hearing before a judge; taxing officer lacks jurisdiction to determine limitation and estoppel issues.
- Judges
- P Nyamweya
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer, Limitation of Actions, Advocate Remuneration
- 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
Mwangi Kengara & Company Advocates
Respondent
Invesco Assurance Company Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer Regarding Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer has jurisdiction to determine if the advocate's bill of costs is statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the issue of costs due to the advocate is a matter for determination by a judge rather than the taxing officer.
- 3 Whether the advocate is estopped from claiming further costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the taxing officer's jurisdiction is confined to the taxation of costs and does not extend to determining whether the advocate's bill of costs is statute-barred or whether the advocate is estopped from claiming further costs. Such fundamental issues, including the existence of costs due, must be determined by a judge of the High Court. The court adopted the reasoning in Abincha & Co Advocates v Trident Insurance Co Ltd, [2013] eKLR, emphasizing that only after the High Court resolves these preliminary questions can the bill of costs be referred back to the taxing officer for taxation, if appropriate. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion challenging the bill of costs on...
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion to proceed to hearing before a judge; taxing officer lacks jurisdiction to determine limitation and estoppel issues.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2016 shall proceed to hearing before a Judge in the Machakos High Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISCELLANOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO 59 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATES ACT CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND THE ADVOCATES (REMUNERATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1997
MWANGI KENGARA & COMPANY ADVOCATES...................ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT
VERSUS
INVESCO ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.......................................CLIENT/APPLICANT
DIRECTIONS
The Applicant herein filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2016 seeking orders that the Bill of Costs herein be struck out and dismissed for being in contravention of section 48 and section 45(6) of the Advocates Act, and for being time barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit thereto. On 28th April 2015 the parties herein appeared before the Deputy Registrar of this Court who is the taxing officer under the Advocates Act for hearing of the Notice of Motion, and the Deputy Registrar ruled that the orders sought in the application are outside the jurisdiction of a taxing officer and referred the matter to this Court for hearing.
The parties now seek directions on the issue of the taxing officer’s jurisdiction in this matter, arguing that the Deputy Registrar had delivered a ruling on 6th April 2016 on a similar application dated 10th November 2015.
I have perused the Court record and note that the ruling delivered by the Deputy Registrar on 6th April 2016 were not on the substantive orders of the Notice of Motion dated 10th November 2015, but on a preliminary objection on whether the said application of was res judicata and sub-judice.
I also note that the powers and jurisdiction of a taxing officer set out in paragraph 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order are in connection with taxation of the bill of costs before him. That paragraph states –
“13A. For the purpose of any proceeding before him, the taxing officer shall have power and authority to summon and examine witnesses, administer oaths, to direct the production of books, papers and documents and to direct and adopt all such other proceedings as may be necessary for the determination of any matter in dispute before him.”
“Any matter in dispute before him” means any matter connected with or concerning the taxation of any item in the bill of costs. The main issues raised in the Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2016 are whether the Advocate’s bill of costs was statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act and whether the Advocate was estopped from claiming any further costs.
Similar issues arose in Abincha & Co Advocates v Trident Insurance Co Ltd, [2013] eKLR, and Waweru J held as follows therein:
“18. Those issues were raising one fundamental issue, to wit, whether there were any costs due to the Advocate that the Taxing Officer could tax? I hold that it was an issue that can only be determined by a Judge. It is the kind of issue that the Taxing Officer, with the consent of both parties, should have referred to the opinion of the High Court.
19. Only after determination of that fundamental issue by the High Court, that is, whether or not there were any costs due to the Advocate that could be taxed, would the bill of costs be referred back to the Taxing Officer for taxation, if it is found that there were costs that were due to the Advocate.”
I wholly adopt this finding and agree with the Deputy Registrar’s ruling on jurisdiction. The Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2016 shall accordingly proceed to hearing before a Judge in the Machakos High Court.
Dated at Machakos this 16th day of November 2016.
P. NYAMWEYA
JUDGE