[2021] KEHC 6381 (KLR)
The court found no error of principle in the taxing master’s decision. The taxation process adhered to the principles of fairness and properly accounted for the work done by the advocate. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the taxed amount was manifestly excessive or that the taxing master considered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6381 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sally Mwembu Manyara; Respondent: S. Nyakundi & Co. Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case E001 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- reference dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Error of Principle, 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
Sally Mwembu Manyara
Applicant
S. Nyakundi & Co. Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing master erred in principle in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs at Kshs 200,375/=.
- 2 Whether the amount taxed was manifestly excessive or failed to account for the actual work done.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no error of principle in the taxing master’s decision. The taxation process adhered to the principles of fairness and properly accounted for the work done by the advocate. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the taxed amount was manifestly excessive or that the taxing master considered irrelevant factors or omitted relevant ones. The court relied on established principles that judicial interference with taxation is only warranted where there is a clear error of principle or manifest excessiveness, neither of which was established in this case. Accordingly, the reference was dismissed.
Court Disposition
reference dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The reference is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO. E001 OF 2021
SALLY MWEMBU MANYARA........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
S. NYAKUNDI & CO. ADVOCATES..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant Sally Mwambu Manyora (client) was dissatisfied with the taxing master’s ruling delivered in respect of an Advocate-client bill of costs. The bill of cost was taxed at Kshs 200,375/=. The Applicant is of the view that the taxed amount is exaggerated and does not take into account the actual work done. She further faulted the taxing master for failing to scrutinize each item in the bill of cost with a view to appropriately taxing off the exaggerated amount. On his part, it was the Respondent’s (Advocates) case that bill of costs was taxed in accordance with the law. He was of the view that the Application did not have merit and should be dismissed. He accused the Applicant of using the court process to frustrate the realization of the fruits of the taxation.
During the hearing of the application, both the Applicant and the Respondent essentially reiterated the contents of the reference and replying affidavit. In addition to the submissions made, the Applicant proposed that she was willing to pay the Respondent the sum of Kshs 100,000/= in full and final settlement of the claim. On his part the advocate, narrated why he was entitled to the amount that was taxed in his favour. He admitted that he had already received the sum of Kshs 50,000/= in part payment of the amount owed. He was not willing to concede to any reduction of the amount that was taxed in his favour by the taxing master.
From the annexures to the affidavit sworn by the Respondent in opposition to the application, it was evident that the Respondent had been given instructions by the Applicant to act on her behalf in various matters, including court cases. On perusal of the said documents, and the decision of the taxing master, this court cannot discern any error in principle. Indeed, the taxation adhered to the principle of fairness and properly accounted for the work done by the Advocate.
In Nyangito & Co. Advocates Vs. Donyo Lessos Cremaries Ltd [2014] eKLR the court held thus:
“The circumstances under which a judge of the High Court interferes with the taxing officer’s exercise of discretion are now well known. These Principles are, (1) that the court cannot interfere with the taxing officer’s decision on taxation unless it is shown that either the decision was based on error of Principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify on interference that it was based on an error in Principle (2) It would be an error of Principle to take into account irrelevant factors or to omit to consider relevant factors and according to the Advocates Remuneration Order itself, some of the relevant factors to be taken into account include the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount or value of the subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of Proceedings and any other direction by the trial Judge …….”
The above cited quote are two of the seven principles mentioned in the ruling. This court agrees entirely with the reasoning of the above holding.
In the premises therefore, the Applicant in the reference herein has not established any error of Principle on the part of the taxing master and therefore the reference must fail. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
DATED AT KITALE THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2021.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE