Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates (Civil Application E001 of 2021) [2023] KECA 303 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed KAA to take its fee dispute to the Supreme Court but refused to pause the KShs 196 million fee ruling while doing so.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interpretation of Schedule VI Parts A and B of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 and the taxing master's discretion in Advocate-Client bills raises a matter of general public importance
Certification granted because the majority and minority decisions of the Court of Appeal took divergent positions on the taxing master's discretion, creating uncertainty requiring the Supreme Court's authoritative resolution
The majority held that once instruction fees in the party and party bill are ascertained, they are increased by one-half to arrive at the Advocate-Client instruction fees, with no further exercise of discretion by the taxing officer. The minority judge held that where the value of the subject matter cannot be ascertained from the pleadings and the suit is struck out at a preliminary stage, the taxing officer should exercise discretion to determine just instruction fees taking all relevant considerations into account. These divergent views call for the Supreme Court's final and authoritative resolution, satisfying the certification principles in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn.
Whether the Court of Appeal can stay its own judgment pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court
It cannot; the stay jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is limited to intervention pending appeals to itself
Counsel for the respondent argued the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to stay its own judgments, and the court agreed, declining to arrogate to itself a non-existent jurisdiction. The stay prayer was accordingly refused while certification was granted.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court lies only as of right in cases involving interpretation or application of the Constitution, or in any other case certified to involve a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)
- A matter of general public importance must have substantial, broad-based impacts and consequences transcending the litigation interests of the parties and bearing upon the public interest
- The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to stay execution of its own judgments pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court
- Divergent majority and minority decisions of the Court of Appeal on a point of law constitute a state of uncertainty in the law meriting the Supreme Court's certification and resolution
Court orders
#- 1.Certified that the intended appeal raises questions of general public importance and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Directed the applicant to file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the date of the ruling and serve it as provided under rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020
- 3.Ordered that the costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- 4.Refused the prayer for stay of execution of the judgment of 19th May 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution - certification that the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates (Civil Application E001 of 2021) [2023] KECA 303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/303/eng@2023-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.