[2019] KEHC 1105 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing master correctly applied the relevant law, specifically Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, in assessing the bill of costs. The value of the subject matter was not pleaded, and the taxing master appropriately taxed item 1 at Kshs. 75,000/-, which is the prescribed sum for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1105 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patricia Obong’; Respondent: Enock Onjuro Ogut; Respondent: Mary Magere Ogut
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 47 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order
- 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
Patricia Obong’
Applicant
Enock Onjuro Ogut
Respondent
Mary Magere Ogut
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the assessment and award of the taxing master on specified items of the bill of costs should be set aside or varied.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs should be retaxed or remitted before a different taxing master.
- 3 Whether the taxing master applied the correct scale and law in taxing the bill.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing master correctly applied the relevant law, specifically Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, in assessing the bill of costs. The value of the subject matter was not pleaded, and the taxing master appropriately taxed item 1 at Kshs. 75,000/-, which is the prescribed sum for matters valued between 0 and Kshs. 500,000/-. The applicant's challenge to the instruction fees and the scale applied was without merit, as the taxing master acted judiciously and within the law. Consequently, there was no basis to set aside or vary the assessment or to remit the bill for retaxation before a different taxing master.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The Chamber Summons application dated 09th April, 2019 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO 47 OF 2019
PATRICIA OBONG’....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ENOCK ONJURO OGUT & MARY MAGERE OGUT....RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. By Chamber Summons dated 09th April, 2019, the Applicant seeks orders THAT: -
1) That the assessment and award of the taxing master made on 20. 02. 19 with respect to items 1, 3, 5, 9 and 12 of the bill of costs dated 10. 11. 17 be set aside and or varied
2) That the Honourable Court be pleased to retax or remit the bill for taxation before a different taxing master
2. The motion is premised on the grounds on the body of the application and the supporting affidavit sworn by the Applicant on09thApril, 2019 in which she faults the taxing master for taxing the bill on the higher scale.
3. I have carefully considered the reference in the light of the supporting affidavit and written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. From the submission, it is apparent that the Applicant is mainly challenging the instructions fees.
4. In civil litigation, there are two distinct methods of determining fees and these are said to be Party and Party fees and Advocate and Client fees. Party and Party costs are based on the principle that the unsuccessful party in any case must, unless the court otherwise orders for good reason, pay the successful party.
5. It is not disputed that the Respondents’ filed a notice to act inperson after their advocate had filed the plaint and served it. The Taxing Master’s finding that the applicable law with regard to the impugned taxation was Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order which provides for assessment of Party and Party Costs in proceedings in the High Court and also applies to proceedings in courts of equal status was therefore well founded.
7. The Taxing Master deduced from the pleadings that the value of the subject matter was not pleaded and taxed item 1 at Kshs. 75,000/-which is the sum applicable for the subject matter whose value is 0 to Kshs. 500,000/-.
8. Whereas it is true that the Respondents had asked for Kshs. 40,000/-, I find that the Taxing Master acted judiciously in awarding the Respondents the costs that they were lawfully entitled to.
9. Accordingly, the Applicant’s Chamber Summons application dated09thApril, 2019 is found to have no merit and is disallowed with costs to the Respondents.
DATED AND DELIVERED IN KISUMU ON THIS 10thDAY OF December 2019
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant
For Applicant
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent