China Jiangsu International Technical Economic Co-operation Corporation v Maina t/a Matra International Associates [2003] KECA 75 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed that a person who represents themselves in a Kenyan case cannot claim lawyer's fees, only their actual reasonable costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a litigant who acted in person is entitled to costs as an advocate.
No. A person who appeared in person and is not an advocate is not entitled to costs as an advocate; such a litigant may recover only the reasonable costs actually incurred, and a bill lodged as if by an advocate is misconceived.
The Deputy Registrar ruled that the respondent, having appeared in person, could not claim costs as an advocate and confined him to reasonable costs actually incurred, disallowing for example self-initiated visits to Nairobi. The single judge found the applicant had erroneously lodged his bill as if he were an advocate. The full Court agreed that the applicant laboured under a mistaken belief, of which both the Deputy Registrar and the single judge had reminded him, and saw no error in that approach.
What is the test for interfering with the discretion of a single judge who has dismissed a reference from the taxing master?
The full Court will interfere only where the single judge was plainly wrong, or took into account a factor he ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account a factor he ought to have taken into account, which might have led him to a plainly wrong decision.
The Court rehearsed the applicant's complaints that the taxation was punitive and that his bills should have been taxed file by file, but found nothing to show that the single judge had gone wrong in upholding the Deputy Registrar's taxation. Absent plain wrongness or misdirection on relevant factors, the discretion of the single judge was left intact and the reference failed. This deferential standard is the operative rule for references of this kind.
Whether two bills of costs arising from one order striking out two appeals should be taxed separately for each file.
No error was established in the taxing master's decision to deal with the two bills together, since the court below had made only one order striking out both appeals rather than a separate order in each file.
The applicant asked the full Court to interfere so that his bill of costs would be taxed on each individual file. The Deputy Registrar had noted that the court made no separate order in each file but one order striking out the appeals, and had dealt with the taxation in the same way, taxing the two amended bills at a combined figure. Neither the single judge nor the full Court found that approach capricious or wrong.
What is the purpose of an award of costs?
Costs are compensatory, not punitive: they compensate the successful litigant for the reasonable costs incurred, and unreasonable claims, such as attendance not required by the Court, fall to be disallowed.
The Deputy Registrar's ruling, quoted in the judgment and left undisturbed through the reference to the single judge and the further reference to the full Court, stated that costs are not a punishment for the unsuccessful party but compensation for the reasonable costs of the successful litigant. On that basis the respondent was confined to costs on dates when he was summoned or invited to Nairobi, and the global award of Shs.16,527 was held reasonable.
Legal principles established
#- A full Court will not interfere with the discretion of a single judge who has dismissed a reference from the taxing master unless the single judge was plainly wrong, or took into account a factor he ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account a factor he ought to have taken into account, which might have led him to a plainly wrong decision.
- As endorsed on this reference, a litigant who appeared in person and is not an advocate is not entitled to costs as an advocate; such a litigant may recover only the reasonable costs actually incurred.
- Costs are compensatory and not punitive: they compensate the successful litigant for the reasonable costs incurred rather than punish the unsuccessful party.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with costs.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (ruling of a single judge)
- Civil Appeal No. 70 and 71 of 1995 (reference from the taxing master)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the ruling. The Court entertained a reference from the ruling of a single judge of the Court of Appeal dismissing a reference from the taxing master (the Deputy Registrar) arising in Civil Appeal No. 70 and 71 of 1995.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "China Jiangsu International Technical Economic Co-operation Corporation v Maina t/a Matra International Associates [2003] KECA 75 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2003). Civil Appeal No. 70 and 71 of 1995. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2003/75/eng@2003-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.