[2019] KEHC 1565 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing officer erred by striking out the Bill of Costs on the mistaken belief that the applicant was not entitled to costs, when in fact the Court of Appeal had expressly awarded costs to the applicant in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This constituted an error on the face of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1565 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Taj Mall Limited; Respondent: Taj Villas Management Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 607 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Bill of Costs remitted for taxation. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- CW Githua
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Reference Against Taxing Officer, Error on Face of Record
- 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
Taj Mall Limited
Appellant
Taj Villas Management Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in striking out the Bill of Costs based on a misapprehension of the Court of Appeal's orders.
- 2 Whether the Bill of Costs should be remitted for fresh taxation in light of the Court of Appeal's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing officer erred by striking out the Bill of Costs on the mistaken belief that the applicant was not entitled to costs, when in fact the Court of Appeal had expressly awarded costs to the applicant in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This constituted an error on the face of the record. The court held that the proper course was to set aside the taxing officer's ruling and remit the Bill of Costs for fresh taxation in accordance with the orders of the Court of Appeal. The court made no order as to costs for the present application.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Bill of Costs remitted for taxation. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 8th February 2019 is allowed.
- The Bill of Costs dated 14th February 2018 and filed on 15th February 2018 is remitted to the taxing officer for taxation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2011
TAJ MALL LIMITED ............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
TAJ VILLAS MANAGEMENT LIMITED......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a Chamber Summons dated 8th February 2019, the respondent, Taj Villas Management Limited, filed a reference urging this court to set aside the taxing officer’s ruling delivered on 4th June 2018 and to remit the Bill of Costs filed on 15th February 2018 to the taxing officer for fresh taxation.
2. In the grounds supporting the application and in the supporting affidavit sworn by learned counsel Mr. Stephen Owino, the applicant contends that the ruling on taxation was based on a mistake and contained an error on the face of the record as the decision by the taxing officer was contrary to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2017.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the application are straightforward and undisputed since the appellant though served with the application and hearing notice did not file any response and did not attend the court on the hearing date. Briefly, the appellant (hereinafter the respondent) appealed to this court against the ruling delivered on 9th November 2011 by the lower court (Hon. Boaz Olao). In that ruling, the learned trial magistrate dismissed an application filed by the applicant (then the defendant) seeking to have the respondent’s plaint struck out on grounds that it did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that the respondent lacked locus standi to institute the suit.
4. The respondent was aggrieved by the trial court’s ruling and filed an appeal to the High Court. The High Court (Hon. Njuguna J) heard the appeal and allowed it. The trial court’s ruling was set aside and was substituted with an order allowing the respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 30th June 2011. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal but the applicant was condemned to pay the respondent’s costs in the lower court.
5. The applicant being dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2017. On 19th January 2018, the Court of Appeal rendered its decision. It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and substituted it with an order dismissing the respondent’s appeal. The applicant was awarded costs both in this court and in the Court of Appeal.
6. Pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the applicant filed the Bill of Costs subject of the instant reference. The court record confirms that in a ruling dated 4th June 2018, the Taxing Master Hon. F. Rashid struck out the Bill of Costs on grounds that it was based on the judgment of this court which did not award costs to the applicant.
7. Given the orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2017 as summarized hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the taxing officer was clearly wrong in her finding that the Bill of Costs emanated from the judgment of this court which did not award costs to the applicant and the applicant was therefore not entitled to costs. The taxing officer appears to have been unaware of the orders made by the Court of Appeal and delivered a ruling which contradicted those orders. This was an obvious mistake which amounts to an error on the face of the record.
8. For the reasons aforegoing, I find merit in the applicant’s chamber summons dated 8th February 2019. The same is accordingly allowed with the result that the Bill of Costs dated 14th February 2018 and filed on 15th February 2018 is hereby remitted to the taxing officer for taxation. I make no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNEDandDELIVERED atNAIROBIthis 14th day of November, 2019.
C. W. GITHUA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Kaburu holding brief for Mr. Mungai for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent though duly served
Mr. Salach: Court Assistant