[2012] KEHC 818 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order by not specifying the items of taxation to which objection was taken. Instead, the applicant merely requested reasons for the entire decision, which is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rustam Hira; Defendant: Oriental Commercial Bank Ltd (formerly The Delphis Bank Ltd)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 323 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation Decision
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Judges
- CM Njagi, A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Procedure for Objecting Taxation, Striking Out Applications
- 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
Rustam Hira
Plaintiff
Oriental Commercial Bank Ltd (formerly The Delphis Bank Ltd)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with the procedure under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order in objecting to the taxing master's decision.
- 2 Whether failure to specify the items of taxation objected to invalidates the application to set aside the taxation decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order by not specifying the items of taxation to which objection was taken. Instead, the applicant merely requested reasons for the entire decision, which is insufficient. This procedural lapse made it impossible for the taxing officer to provide reasons for specific items as required by law. Consequently, the application to set aside the taxation decision was fatally defective and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Civil Suit 323 of 2006 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
RUSTAM HIRA…………………………ADVOCATE/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
FORMERLY THE DELPHIS BANK LTD…………..DEFENDANT
RULING
This application is brought by a Notice of Motion dated 14th June, 2010 and taken out under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order L rule 1 of the Civil Procedures Rules and paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Client/Applicant thereby prays for orders that the decision of the taxing master delivered on 10th November, 2009 be set aside, and that the court do order that the Advocate/Respondent’s bill of costs filed herein be remitted back to the Deputy Registrar for taxation afresh, and that costs of this application be provided for.
The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Kithinji Marete sworn on 4th June, 2010.
In opposition, Mr. Hira, for the Advocate/Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 20th July, 2010. He deposes that the supporting affidavit herein contradicts in many respects the affidavit sworn on 20th February, 2009 to set aside the first taxation.
After considering the application and submissions of counsel, I note that the 1st taxation in this matter was set aside and that this is a second taxation which is now sought to be set aside. Whereas there is nothing wrong in so doing, the correct procedure should be followed.
This application is brought, inter alia, under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. That paragraph is in the following terms-
“11. (1)Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
(2)The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.”
In the two letters dated 24th November, 2009 and 29th March, 2010 and addressed by Mr. Marete to the Deputy Registrar, I note that learned counsel wrote that “…pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, we hereby request the reasons for the decision of the honourable Taking Master delivered on 10/11/2009…”This is contrary to paragraph 11(1) “which requires any party objecting to the decision in writing of the items of taxation to which he objects.” Clearly, Mr. Marete has not complied with this requirement insomuch as he has not specified the specific items of taxation to which he objects. This makes it difficult for the taxing officer to record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision “on those items” as required by paragraph 11(2).
For the above reasons, I find that the request by the Applicant is out of accord with paragraph 11 (supra) and the application is hereby struck out with costs.
L. NJAGI
JUDGE
DATEDandDELIVERED at NAIROBI this 19th day of November, 2012
MABEYA
JUDGE