[2023] KENET 1344 (KLR)

[2023] KENET 1344 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the value of the subject matter could not be ascertained from the pleadings, affidavits, or Notice of Appeal. Therefore, the Appellant's computation of instruction fees based on an alleged value of Kshs. 30,000,000 lacked legal basis. Guided by Schedule 11(9) of the Advocates (Remuneration)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KENET 1344 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samora Sikalieh (Suing As The Chairman Of KLDA On Behalf Of Tree Lane Residents); Respondent: National Environment Management Authority; Respondent: Spasso Bar Restaurant & Lounge; Respondent: Director (Owner) Spasso Bar Restaurant & Lounge
Court
National Environment Tribunal - Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal 22 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Taxation of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's Bill of Costs taxed and allowed in part; total costs awarded at Kshs. 103,000 against the 2nd Respondent.
Judges
Emmanuel Mumia, Winnie Tsuma, Kariuki Muigua, Duncan Kuria, Ronald Allamano
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Bill of Costs Taxation, Noise Pollution Dispute, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Bill of Costs Taxation Noise Pollution Dispute Tribunal Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samora Sikalieh (Suing As The Chairman Of KLDA On Behalf Of Tree Lane Residents)

Applicant

National Environment Management Authority

Respondent

Spasso Bar Restaurant & Lounge

Respondent

Director (Owner) Spasso Bar Restaurant & Lounge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Taxation of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is entitled to the claimed costs as presented in the Bill of Costs.
  2. 2 How instruction fees and other claimed costs should be assessed where the value of the subject matter is unascertainable.
  3. 3 Whether claims for photocopying, expert witness, and service expenses are allowable under the relevant legal framework.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the value of the subject matter could not be ascertained from the pleadings, affidavits, or Notice of Appeal. Therefore, the Appellant's computation of instruction fees based on an alleged value of Kshs. 30,000,000 lacked legal basis. Guided by Schedule 11(9) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, and the precedent in Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and awarded instruction fees of Kshs. 100,000, considering the non-complex nature of the appeal, which revolved around noise pollution. Claims for drawing, perusal, and photocopying were disallowed as they were either included in instruction fees or...

Court Disposition

Appellant's Bill of Costs taxed and allowed in part; total costs awarded at Kshs. 103,000 against the 2nd Respondent.

Orders

  • Instruction fees awarded at Kshs. 100,000.
  • Attendance before the Tribunal awarded at Kshs. 3,000.