[2021] KEHC 5952 (KLR)
The court found that the order delivered on 10th July 2019 was clear and specific in only setting aside the instructions fees and substituting them with a new amount, while leaving all other items in the Bill of Costs unchanged. The judge had already considered all relevant factors in capping the costs, and there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Suleiman Kasuti Murunga; Respondent: The Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Moses Munyesi-Returning Officer, Kimilili Constituency; Respondent: Didmas Wekesa Barasa alias Didymas Mutua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 2 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Ruling on Applications for Review of Taxation Ruling
- Outcome
- applications dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SN Riechi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Review of Rulings, Advocates Remuneration Order, Getting Up Fees
- 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
Suleiman Kasuti Murunga
Applicant
The Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Moses Munyesi-Returning Officer, Kimilili Constituency
Respondent
Didmas Wekesa Barasa alias Didymas Mutua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Applications for Review of Taxation Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review the Taxation Ruling delivered on 25th October 2018 in light of the judgement dated 10th July 2019.
- 2 Whether getting up fees should be recalculated based on the revised instructions fees as per Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order delivered on 10th July 2019 was clear and specific in only setting aside the instructions fees and substituting them with a new amount, while leaving all other items in the Bill of Costs unchanged. The judge had already considered all relevant factors in capping the costs, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review. The applications for review were therefore found to be without merit and dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
applications dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applications for review are dismissed with costs.
- No alteration to the Bill of Costs except as previously ordered regarding instructions fees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT BUNGOMA
ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2017
SULEIMAN KASUTI MURUNGA....................................................................................PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL & BOUNDARIES COMMISSION..........1ST RESPONDENT
MOSES MUNYESI-RETURNING OFFICER, KIMILILI CONSTITUENCY...2ND RESPONDENT
DIDMAS WEKESA BARASA alias DIDYMAS MUTUA.....................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
This ruling relates to 2 applications dated 25th October, 2019 preferred by the 1st and 2nd respondents and another dated 16th January, 2020 by the 3rd respondent.
The two applications seek similar prayers; that is;
a. The honourable court be pleased to review the Taxation Ruling delivered on the 25th October 2018 in the Bill of Costs dated 25th June, 2018.
b. The honourable court be pleased to alter appropriately the Bill of Costs dated 25th June, 2018 to incorporate the High Court’s finding in the Judgement dated 10/7/2019.
c. Costs of the application.
The facts relevant to the application are that a Ruling on the 1st and 2nd respondents’ Bill of Costs was delivered on 25/10/2018 by the Deputy Registrar where he awarded Kshs 800,000/= as Instructions Fees.
Dissatisfied with the award, the 1st and 2nd respondents preferred a Reference to the judge wherein judgement was delivered on 10/7/2019. The learned judge set aside the award of Kshs 800,000/= and substituted it with Kshs 3,000,000/= as instructions fees and left the other items in the bill undisturbed.
The applicants now contend that there is an error with regard to this Ruling in that as per Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, getting up fees should not be less than a third of the Instructions Fees.
That it follows therefore that if the instructions fees are assessed at Kshs 3, 000,000/=, getting up fees should be Kshs 1, 000,000/=.
Schedule 6 paragraph 2 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, states;
In any case in which a denial of liability is filed or in which issues for trial are joined by the pleadings, a fee for getting up and preparing the case for trial shall be allowed in addition to the instruction fee and shall be not less than one-third of the instruction fee allowed on taxation.
The order sought to be reviewed by this court was delivered on 10th July, 2019 in the following terms;
The judge in capping the costs took into account the nature of the claim, effort made by the parties, complexity of the matter and research involved to arrive at the instructions fees and therefore the judge having capped the instructions fees, it was not available for the Deputy Registrar to revise the same downwards as it had been settled by the trial judge. The instructions fees of Kshs 800,000/= is hereby set aside and replaced with Kshs 3,000,000/=. The rest of the items in the Bill of Costs remain undisturbed.
The court in its order was very specific as it was only the instructions fees which was set aside. All the other items in the bill remained the same. I find no error in the order made to warrant a review by this court. The applications are found without merit and are hereby dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.
DATEDAND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021
S.N RIECHI
JUDGE