[2007] KEHC 731 (KLR)
The court found that the directions given by Ochieng J on the first reference were clear and limited the Taxing Officer's discretion to recalculating the costs based on arithmetical corrections under Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The value of the subject matter was not in issue, and the only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 731 (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 From Taxation Decision Under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (remuneration) Order
- Outcome
- client's application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, 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
Ojiambo & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Razco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Taxation Decision Under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (remuneration) Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer committed an error of principle in recalculating the Advocates' Bill of Costs as directed by the court.
- 2 Whether the court should interfere with the Taxing Officer's decision on taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the directions given by Ochieng J on the first reference were clear and limited the Taxing Officer's discretion to recalculating the costs based on arithmetical corrections under Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The value of the subject matter was not in issue, and the only error previously identified was arithmetical. The Taxing Officer complied with these directions, and there was no error of principle in the recalculation. Since no appeal was lodged against the directions of Ochieng J, and the client failed to demonstrate any error of principle in the Taxing Officer's decision, the court declined to interfere with the taxation. The client's...
Court Disposition
client's application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The client's application dated 7.3.2007 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
Misc Cause 318 of 2005
OJIAMBO & CO. ADVOCATES………….....APPLICANT/ADVOCATE
VERSUS
RAZCO LIMITED………………….….……...…RESPONDENT/CLIENT
RULING
This application has been brought under the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. It is a reference from a taxation of the Deputy Registrar of this court. The decision on taxation was given on 6. 12. 2006 on the Advocates’ Bill of Costs dated 25. 4.2005.
The record is as follows:
The Advocates’ same Bill of Costs was originally taxed on 18. 10. 2005 in the sum of KShs.58,610. 00. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the Advocates filed a reference which was considered and allowed by my Learned Brother Ochieng J on 19. 10. 2006. The Learned Judge said as follows:-
“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 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.”
The directions of the Learned Judge were very clear and I dare say with all due respect narrowed the discretion of the Taxing Officer. It appears from the directions that the value of the subject matter was not in issue. The only error appears to have been arithmetical and that is exactly how the Taxing Officer interpreted the directions. The parties could easily have anticipated the decision of the Taxing Officer. Yet no appeal was lodged against the decision of Hon. Ochieng J on the first reference referred to above. This reference arises from the recalculation. I have considered the arguments made on the reference and the authorities cited to me. I have also, as I was duty bound to, considered the decision of the Taxing Officer; I detect no error at all. With all due respect the client’s submissions attractive as they are would have been pertinent if I were to consider the 1st reference.
As both counsels appreciated, I cannot interfere with the Taxing Officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle. I have detected no such error.
In the result, I decline to interfere with the decision of the Taxing Officer. The client’s application dated 7. 3.2007 is accordingly dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY 2007.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:
Gichuhi for the applicant and Ojiambo for the Respondent.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
11/7/07