Koskei Monda & Co Advocates v Parminder Manku & another [2017] KEELC 2270 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court slashed an advocate's fee bill from a rent-based scale to Kshs.70,000 after finding the wrong fee schedule was used for a simple legal opinion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Enlargement of time to file a reference against a taxing master's ruling
Time was enlarged because the applicants satisfactorily explained the delay in obtaining the typed ruling and reasons, and the respondent did not seriously contest the application.
The applicants' advocate could not obtain the typed ruling from the registry as the court file had not been returned, so the reference period lapsed while they awaited the ruling and the taxing master's reasons. The court found this a sufficient explanation and noted the delay was not seriously opposed, making enlargement appropriate in the interests of justice.
Correct schedule of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order 2014 applicable to the instruction
The bill was wrongly taxed under Schedule 2 Paragraph 1 (scale fees for preparing, settling and completing documents); the correct provision was Schedule 5 Part II Paragraph 6, which deals with opinions and carries a minimum fee of Kshs.35,000/-.
The tenancy agreement had already been drafted by a different law firm; the respondent was engaged only to render an opinion on what could be incorporated to protect the applicants' interests. Since the instruction was for an opinion, not document preparation, the taxing master erred in taxing the bill under the document-preparation schedule calculated on annual rent.
Assessment of fees by the court upon setting aside the taxation
The court assessed the respondent's bill at Kshs.70,000/-, taking into account the limited complexity, roughly seventy pages of documents, the advice to sign the tenancy agreement as drawn, and the monthly rent of Kshs.200,000/-.
Rather than remitting the bill for fresh taxation, the judge assessed it directly to save judicial time. Factors considered included the care and labour involved, the number and length of papers to be perused, the absence of complexity, and the value of the subject matter, consistent with the principles governing fee assessment.
Legal principles established
#- A reference from a taxing master's decision is akin to an appeal and the court is bound to evaluate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion, not to confirm the taxing master's finding.
Court orders
#- 1.Time enlarged and leave granted to the applicants to file the reference out of time
- 2.The taxation ruling and order of the taxing master dated 23rd June 2016 set aside
- 3.The respondent's bill of costs assessed by the court at Kshs.70,000/-
- 4.The applicants awarded the costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from the Taxing Master's decision on an Advocate/Client bill of costs; inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time under the Advocates Remuneration Order framework
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koskei Monda & Co Advocates v Parminder Manku & another [2017] KEELC 2270 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Chamber Summons dated 28th September 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2270/eng@2017-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.