Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2016] KEELC 1283 (KLR)

Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Chimako Homes Limited [2016] KEELC 1283 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
9 September 2016
2,411 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court enforced a Kshs 2.79 million taxed legal bill against a client who challenged it too late and without following the required procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The High Court (Mary M. Gitumbi, J) determined two applications arising from a taxation of an advocate's bill of costs. The Deputy Registrar had on 5th February 2015 taxed the Advocates/Respondent's bill at Kshs. 2,788,080/- in respect of a conveyancing transaction for the sale of L.R. No. 67255/225 for Kshs. 187,000,000/=. The Client/Applicant's application under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order sought a stay of execution and setting aside of the ruling, alleging non-service of the bill and hearing notice, an agreed fee arrangement, and manifestly excessive awards. The court held the application premature because the applicant had not demonstrated it requested the taxing officer's reasons; found service was proved by an affidavit of service at premises the former advocate knew to be the applicant's offices; and found no error of principle, the taxing officer having considered the value of the subject matter, complexity and relevant circumstances. Absent an exhibited fee agreement, the advocate was entitled to tax under Rule 18 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009. The first application was dismissed with costs to the Advocates/Respondent. The Advocates' subsequent unopposed application under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act seeking adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 6th February 2015 as judgment and decree with liberty to execute was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prematurity of the Rule 11 reference

Holding

The application was premature because the applicant had not demonstrated that it requested the taxing officer's reasons for the decision.

Reasoning

Under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, an objector gives notice within fourteen days and the taxing officer must furnish reasons, after which a reference may be filed within fourteen days of receipt. The applicant filed its objection and requested the registrar's decision on 13th February 2015 but never followed up. The taxing master had not written her reasons. Following Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara, the court held failure to furnish reasons is a good ground for reference but the applicant had to show it requested them.

p. 3
02

Service of the bill of costs and hearing notice

Holding

The court found the applicant was duly served, disbelieving its claim of non-service.

Reasoning

An affidavit of service sworn by Peter Mwangi Njoroge on 2nd February 2015 showed service at the applicant's offices at Group Four Security Offices, Mombasa Road. The advocate had previously acted for the applicant and thus knew its offices; the applicant did not dispute the location stated by the process server, rendering its claim of non-service untrue.

p. 4
03

Whether the taxing master erred in principle or awarded excessive fees

Holding

No error of principle was committed and the amounts awarded were reasonable.

Reasoning

Applying Schedule VI clause (1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the taxing officer was to consider the nature and importance of the matter, the amount involved, the parties' interests and the general conduct of proceedings. The court found the taxing officer considered the value of the subject matter (a sale of L.R. No. 67255/225 for Kshs. 187,000,000/=), the complexity of the matter and the duty and care in arriving at the figure awarded. Absent an exhibited fee agreement, the advocate was entitled to tax under Rule 18.

p. 4
04

Adoption of the Certificate of Taxation as judgment and decree

Holding

The unopposed application under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act was allowed.

Reasoning

Section 51(2) provides that the certificate of the taxing officer is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered, and the court may order judgment to be entered for the sum certified where the retainer is not disputed. Since the first application attacking the taxation failed and the second application was unopposed, the certificate of Kshs. 2,788,080/- was adopted as judgment with liberty to execute.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive
  • A taxing officer's total failure to record and forward reasons does not itself preclude an objector from filing a competent reference
  • In the absence of an agreement on legal fees, remuneration is governed by Rule 18 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009
  • A certificate of taxation is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the court, and judgment may be entered on it where the retainer is not disputed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Chamber Summons (Notice of Motion) dated 26th February 2015 dismissed with costs to the Advocates/Respondent
  2. 2.The Advocate/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2015 allowed - the Certificate of Taxation dated 6th February 2015 of Kshs. 2,788,080/- adopted and judgment entered against the Client/Respondent with liberty to execute, with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009Rule 11(1) and (2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009Rule 18
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderSchedule VI clause (1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActOrder 11 Rule 1
  • Advocates ActSection 51(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • D. Njogu & Co. Advocates –vs- National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2009] eKLR
  • D. Njogu & Co. Advocates –vs- National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2007] eKLR
  • Joreth Ltd –vs- Kigano & Associates
    (2002) 1 EA 92
  • Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates –vs- Deposit Protection Fund Board
    [2005] 1 KLR 528
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (first application); Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (second application)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Chimako Homes Limited [2016] KEELC 1283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/1283/eng@2016-09-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.