[2019] KEELC 3778 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3778 (KLR)

The court found that the taxing officer erred in principle by failing to consider all relevant circumstances, including the value of the subject matter, when assessing the instruction fee in the Party and Party Bill of Costs. The taxing officer confined his consideration to the complexity of the matter and the time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3778 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ruth Chepkemoi Chesimet; Applicant: Rodha Chemeli Sigira; Respondent: Kipkrui Arap Chepwony
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 23 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxation Decision
Outcome
Application allowed. Taxing officer's decision set aside. Bill of costs to be re-taxed before a different taxing officer.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Costs Taxation, Advocate Remuneration, Party and Party Costs, Instruction Fee Assessment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Taxation Advocate Remuneration Party and Party Costs Instruction Fee Assessment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Chepkemoi Chesimet

Applicant

Rodha Chemeli Sigira

Applicant

Kipkrui Arap Chepwony

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Reference Against Taxation Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing the Party and Party costs.
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the taxing officer ought to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing officer erred in principle by failing to consider all relevant circumstances, including the value of the subject matter, when assessing the instruction fee in the Party and Party Bill of Costs. The taxing officer confined his consideration to the complexity of the matter and the time and labour expended, without exercising his discretion to ascertain the value of the subject matter as required by the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The court held that, although the taxing officer was not bound by the instruction fee taxed in the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, he was obligated to take all relevant factors into account, including the value of the subject...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Taxing officer's decision set aside. Bill of costs to be re-taxed before a different taxing officer.

Orders

  • The decision of the taxing officer dated 16th January 2019 is set aside.
  • Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 2nd August 2018 to be placed before a different taxing officer for re-taxation of item 1 (instruction fees) only.