[2006] KEHC 3573 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing officer correctly determined that Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order applied to the bill of costs, as the services provided by the applicant were specifically prescribed therein and no election under paragraph 22 had been made. The respondent, having not filed a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 3573 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ojiambo & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Razco Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 318 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxation Ruling
- Outcome
- Reference allowed; sum awarded set aside; costs to be recalculated by another taxing officer under Schedule 1; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Remuneration Order Interpretation
- 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
Ojiambo & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Razco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxation Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in calculating the costs under Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
- 2 Whether the respondent can seek re-taxation under Schedule V without filing a reference.
- 3 Whether Schedule V is applicable to the services provided by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing officer correctly determined that Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order applied to the bill of costs, as the services provided by the applicant were specifically prescribed therein and no election under paragraph 22 had been made. The respondent, having not filed a reference against the taxing officer's ruling, could not seek to have the bill re-taxed under Schedule V. However, the court identified errors in the calculation of the costs under Schedule 1 and therefore allowed the applicant's reference, set aside the sum previously awarded, and directed that the costs be recalculated by another taxing officer in accordance with Schedule 1. The...
Court Disposition
Reference allowed; sum awarded set aside; costs to be recalculated by another taxing officer under Schedule 1; costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- The reference is allowed.
- The sum of KShs. 67,987.60 awarded is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
Misc Appli 318 of 2005
OJIAMBO & CO. ADVOCATES………...................................………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
RAZCO LIMITED…………..................................…………………………….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
In a ruling dated 18th October 2005, the learned taxing officer awarded the sum of KShs. 67,987/60 as costs, following the taxation of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs.
The advocate felt aggrieved with the award and therefore filed a reference to challenge it. This ruling in relation to that reference.
It is clear that in her considered view, the learned taxing officer found the bill to be taxable under Schedule 1. With that finding, the applicant is in agreement. However, the dispute is only in relation to the calculation.
On the other hand, the respondent has asked this court to direct the taxing officer to re-tax the bill under Schedule V part II.
When it is borne in mind that the respondent has not challenged the ruling of the taxing officer, through a reference, I find that it is not open to the said respondent to seek to vary the said finding in the manner they have chosen. I therefore turn down the respondent’s invitation that I direct the taxing officer to retax the bill pursuant to Schedule V.
In any event schedule V would only have been applicable if there was otherwise no prescription for the kind of services which the applicant had provided to the client, or alternatively if the applicant had made an election under paragraph 22 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. In this case, the fee payable is prescribed in Schedule 1. Also, the advocate did not make an election under paragraph 22. Therefore Schedule V would be inapplicable to the bill of costs herein.
As far as the calculations were concerned, it is evident that there were errors. Therefore, I allow the reference, set aside the sum awarded, and direct that the costs be re-calculated by another taxing officer. The said re-calculations shall be carried out pursuant to Schedule 1of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Finally, the costs of this application shall be awarded to the applicant.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi, this 19th day of October 2006.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE