[2019] KEHC 1178 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient grounds to set aside the ruling of the taxing officer, particularly because the bill of costs was taxed at a figure exceeding what was sought by the applicant and there was a misapplication of the relevant provisions of the Advocate’s Remuneration...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Waiganjo Wachira & Company Advocates; Respondent: Pacis Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 71 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Waiganjo Wachira & Company Advocates
Applicant
Pacis Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ruling of the taxing officer should be set aside for taxing the bill of costs beyond what was sought by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the bill of costs should be subjected to fresh taxation before a different taxing officer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient grounds to set aside the ruling of the taxing officer, particularly because the bill of costs was taxed at a figure exceeding what was sought by the applicant and there was a misapplication of the relevant provisions of the Advocate’s Remuneration Order. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the entire ruling and directed that the bill of costs be subjected to fresh taxation before a different taxing officer to ensure fairness and adherence to proper procedure.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The ruling of the taxing officer dated 15th November, 2018 is set aside in its entirety.
- The bill of costs shall be subjected to fresh taxation before another taxing officer of competent jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2018
WAIGANJO WACHIRA & COMPANY ADVOCATES....................APPLICANT
VERSUS
PACIS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant is a firm of advocates which filed a bill of costs against the respondent for taxation. The said bill was taxed and a ruling delivered by the taxing officer on 15th November, 2018. The respondent was aggrieved by the said ruling and lodged this application by way of chamber summons to have the said ruling set aside, and the bill of costs be subjected to taxation before a different taxing officer.
The application is brought under paragraph 11 (2) of the Advocate’s (Remuneration) Order and Article 159 2(d) of the Constitution. It is opposed and grounds of objection were filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent. Both parties have filed submissions which I have read. Outstanding issues have been raised by the respondent relating to the said ruling in that the bill of costs was taxed at a figure that was beyond what was sought by the applicant. Further, the application of the relevant provisions in the Advocate’s Remuneration Order, as relates to the procedure in ordinary suits has been cited as one of the issues that the taxing officer missed in the appreciation of the bill.
I have considered the submissions and the cited authorities on record. Without saying much, I am persuaded that this is an application that has met the threshold of setting aside the ruling of the taxing officer. I do not deem it necessary to delve any deeper than to set aside the said ruling in its entirety, and order that the bill of costs shall be subjected to fresh taxation before another taxing officer of competent jurisdiction.
Going by the age of the dispute, expedition of the process should be applied in this matter. The costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 7th Day of November, 2019.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE