[1955] EACA 309
The Court held that rule 7(2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court expressly requires leave of the judge for an appeal to the Court of Appeal on objections to a taxing master's decision. Since the judge refused leave, no further appeal is permitted under the municipal law of Kenya. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1955] EACA 309
- Parties
- Appellant: Manilal & Company; Respondent: A. H. Nurmohamed & Co. Ltd.; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd.
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Vary Taxing Master's Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Macduff J, Nihill P, Worley VP
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Appeals Process, Leave to Appeal
- 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
Manilal & Company
Appellant
A. H. Nurmohamed & Co. Ltd.
Respondent
The Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Vary Taxing Master's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal where leave to appeal from a judge's decision on taxation of costs has been refused.
- 2 Whether rule 7(2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court permits such an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that rule 7(2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court expressly requires leave of the judge for an appeal to the Court of Appeal on objections to a taxing master's decision. Since the judge refused leave, no further appeal is permitted under the municipal law of Kenya. The appeal was therefore incompetent and had to be dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed as incompetent.
- The appellants shall pay the costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before SIR BARCLAY NIHILL (President), SIR NEWNHAM WORLEY (Vice-President) and MACDUFF, J. (Kenya)
## MANILAL & COMPANY, Appellants (Original Plaintiffs)
## (1) A. H. NURMOHAMED & CO. LTD. (2) THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD., Respondents (Original Defendants) Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955
(Appeal from the decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya, Mayers, J.)
Appeal—Appeal against order of Supreme Court refusing to vary decision of Taxing Master—Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court, rule $7$ (2)—Incompetency of appeal.
A Judge of the Supreme Court refused to vary the decision of a taxing master. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from his order was refused by the said Judge. The appellants appealed.
Rule 7 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court provides: "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Judge upon any objection referred to such Judge under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule may, with leave of the Judge, but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa".
Held (21-7-55).—There being no provision in the municipal law of Kenya for an appeal to the Court of Appeal where leave to appeal has been refused by a Judge in an objection to him from a taxing master, the appeal was incompetent.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellants in person (by the proprietor of the appellant company).
Inamdar for first respondent.
Cleasby for second respondent.
JUDGMENT (delivered by Nihill (President)).—This appeal purports to be an appeal against an order of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya which refused to vary the decision of a taxing officer. The respondents have raised the preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent under rule 7 (2) of the Kenya Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court. This objection must be upheld.
The appellant applied to the Judge of the Supreme Court, who dismissed his appeal against the decision of the taxing officer, for leave to appeal to this Court and that application was dismissed. In view of the wording of rule 7 (2) of the above Rules of Court it is clear that no further appeal to this Court can lie. The decision, therefore, is that under the Municipal Law of Kenya no right of appeal on a matter such as this, where leave to appeal has been refused, is provided for. This appeal is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed with costs.