[2023] KEHC 26548 (KLR)
The court found that the taxing officer had applied the wrong principles by treating the suit as undefended and taxing the Bill of Costs at the lower scale, a fact conceded by the taxing officer herself. The court determined that this constituted an error in taxation, and that the applicant was entitled to have the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 26548 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: OM Wanyama T/A Wanyama & Company Advocates; Respondent: Beatrice Awino Ikapel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation of Advocate/client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- Application allowed in its entirety.
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill, Error in Taxation, Remission to Taxing Officer
- 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
OM Wanyama T/A Wanyama & Company Advocates
Applicant
Beatrice Awino Ikapel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Taxation of Advocate/client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxation of the advocate/client Bill of Costs was conducted using the correct scale and principles.
- 2 Whether the taxed costs should have been increased by one half as required.
- 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to the taxing officer for proper taxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxing officer had applied the wrong principles by treating the suit as undefended and taxing the Bill of Costs at the lower scale, a fact conceded by the taxing officer herself. The court determined that this constituted an error in taxation, and that the applicant was entitled to have the taxation set aside and the matter remitted to the taxing officer for proper taxation in accordance with the correct scale and applicable increases. The absence of opposition from the respondent further supported granting the application as unopposed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in its entirety.
Orders
- The taxation of the advocate/client Bill of Costs dated June 30, 2021 is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the taxing officer for taxation in accordance with the correct principles.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Wanyama t/a Wanyama & Company Advocates v Ikapel (Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 26548 (KLR) (11 December 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26548 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2021
WM Musyoka, J
December 11, 2023
Between
OM Wanyama T/A Wanyama & Company, Advocates
Applicant
and
Beatrice Awino Ikapel
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application for determination is dated July 29, 2021, seeking the setting aside of the taxation on June 30, 2021 of the advocate/client Bill of Costs, and its remission to the taxing officer for taxation.
2. The background given, on the face of the application, and in the supporting affidavit, is that the taxing officer made an error during taxation, when she treated the suit as undefended, and taxed the Bill at the lower scale, instead of treating the suit as defended and taxing on the higher scale. It is also complained that the taxed costs were not increased by one half.
3. I see, on the record, a letter that the applicant wrote to the taxing officer on the matter, dated July 14, 2021; and the reply to it by the taxing officer, dated July 15, 2021, wherein she concedes that there was a mistake in taxing the Bill based on the upper scale.
4. There is proof, by way of affidavits of service, that the application was served on the respondent. It has never been responded to, and the respondent never attended court on the dates when the matter came up, either personally or through her Advocates. The application is, therefore, undefended.
5. The matter is fairly straightforward. The bill was taxed, but the wrong principles were applied, a fact that the taxing officer concedes, in her letter to the applicant, dated July 15, 2021. Consequently, I hereby allow the application, dated July 29, 2021, in its entirety.
DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AND DELIVERED BY EMAIL, AT BUSIA THIS…11TH…DAY OF……DECEMBER…...2023W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Wanyama, instructed by Wanyama & Company, Advocates for the applicant.MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E040 OF 2021 – RULING 2