Sanpac Limited v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) 320 of 2018) [2024] KECA 1765 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out a Kshs.500,000 legal fee award, confirming taxing officers must not inflate fees using irrelevant factors.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the taxing officer rightly exercised her discretion in the ruling dated 20th May 2024 in awarding instruction fees of Kshs.500,000
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer correctly identified the subject matter of the appeal for purposes of assessing instruction fees
The appeal's subject matter was the refusal to reinstate the primary suit, which has no discernible monetary value; it was not the Kshs.138,879,010.53 claim in the underlying suit.
The appeal arose from an application for reinstatement of a suit dismissed for want of prosecution; the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal for want of leave. Rejection of a reinstatement application has no discernible monetary value, so the taxing officer was entitled to exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees rather than peg them to the pleaded quantum of the primary suit.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in awarding Kshs.500,000 as instruction fees
Yes. By considering the nature and importance of the appeal and the interests of the parties, which were irrelevant where the appeal was struck out on a preliminary point for want of leave, the taxing officer took into account irrelevant factors and made an error of principle, rendering the award inordinately high.
The appeal was disposed of by preliminary objection and struck out because leave had not been obtained. The single issue was whether the appeal could stand without leave. There was therefore no room to weigh the nature, importance and interests factors under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule; citing them as considered constituted reliance on irrelevant factors, an error of principle warranting the court's intervention.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only on proof of an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive or deficient; the mere fact that the judge would have awarded a different figure is not a ground for interference.
- Where the value of the subject matter is neither discernible nor determinable from the pleadings, the judgment or the settlement, the taxing officer may use discretion to assess instruction fees; the statutorily commanded starting point is one of the three, disjunctively, not in combination.
- Where an error of principle is found in a taxation, the judge will normally remit the matter to the taxing officer for reconsideration.
- Where an appeal is disposed of on a preliminary point, such as striking out for want of leave, the taxing officer errs in principle by factoring in considerations such as the nature and importance of the appeal and the interests of the parties.
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the sum awarded as instruction fees
- 2.Remit the assessment of instruction fees back for fresh taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon. L.D. Ogombe
- 3.Award the costs of the reference to the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a taxing officer's ruling under the Court of Appeal Rules, Third Schedule
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that the taxing officer erred in principle, which therefore calls for the intervention of this Court. Accordingly, I set aside the sum awarded as instruction fees, and I remit it back for fresh taxation.
The said fresh taxation shall be undertaken by a taxing officer other than Hon. L.D. Ogombe.
As costs follow the event, the costs of this reference are awarded to the appellant.
the rejection of an application for the reinstatement of the suit had no discernible monetary value. Therefore, the taxing officer was entitled to exercise her discretion in assessing the instruction fees.
The taxing officer took into account irrelevant factors, and by so doing, made an error of principle by awarding an amount which was inordinately high in the circumstances.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sanpac Limited v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) 320 of 2018) [2024] KECA 1765 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Reference dated 23rd May 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1765/eng@2024-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.