[2005] KEHC 2644 (KLR)
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the Advocates Remuneration Rules. Specifically, the applicant did not apply for enlargement of time to obtain reasons for the taxation, as required under Rule II (4). Without such reasons, the court lacked...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2644 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shah & Parekh; Respondent: Apollo Insurance Co. Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 328 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Master's Decision
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration, Judicial Discretion, Procedure for Objection
- 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
Shah & Parekh
Applicant
Apollo Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxing Master's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside the taxing master's decision was properly before the court.
- 2 Whether failure to request enlargement of time for reasons invalidates the application.
- 3 Whether the taxing master's failure to disclose the schedule under which the bill was taxed was a valid ground for objection.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the Advocates Remuneration Rules. Specifically, the applicant did not apply for enlargement of time to obtain reasons for the taxation, as required under Rule II (4). Without such reasons, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. The argument regarding the taxing master's failure to disclose the schedule was rejected, as the Remuneration Order clearly provides that costs in the High Court are awarded under Schedule VI. The application was therefore improperly brought and could not be granted.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 328 OF 2003
SHAH & PAREKH …………………..…………….…….… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
APOLLO INSURANCE CO. LTD. …………..………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
The Applicant herein seeks orders under a Chamber Summons dated 1st April 2004 as follows:
1. That the Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the taxing masters’ decision on the taxation delivered on 8th October 2003.
2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to refer the matter back to the taxing master with directions on the proper manner of taxation.
3. That costs of this application be provided for.
The Applicants complains that the decision of the taxing master has no legal basis, and that the same was arrived at after undue “excess and abuse” of discretion and that the taxing master failed in not disclosing the schedule under which the Bill was taxed. I find the latter argument nonsensical since the Remuneration Order is very clear that that costs of proceedings in the High Court will ordinarily be awarded under Schedule VI.
The Respondents have opposed this application on the grounds that the same is either premature or statute barred given the provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Rules II (1) and II (2). The Applicants reply to this is that they filed the application since reasons requested for from the Registrar were delayed. I agree with the Respondents that this sort of application is not the correct procedure where reasons are delayed. Under Rule II (4) this Court is empowered to enlarge the time prescribed under Rule II but on application by the objector (applicant) and with appropriate notice to the Respondent.
(other parties). Until reasons are given it appears the judge will ordinarily have no jurisdiction to entertain an application such as this one. I find that the Ruling delivered on 8th October 2003 does not help this Court much in dealing with the objection filed herein. However as the Applicants never asked the Court for enlargement to obtain the reasons behind the taxation I find that the application is improperly brought and order sought cannot therefore be granted. The same is dismissed with n order as to costs.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of January 2005.
M.G. Mugo
Judge
In the presence of:
Mr. Mutua present for Mereka & Company Advocates for the Applicant
Mr. Tiego present for Shah & Parekh Advocates for the Respondent