Mutuku Mutinga & another v Joreth Limited & 2 others [2017] KEELC 3142 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ruled that a taxing officer's ruling itself counts as the required reasons, so challenging taxed costs without showing they are excessive will fail.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer failed to give reasons for her decision under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The taxing officer's ruling of 9th September 2015 constituted adequate reasons; the handwritten note that the reasons were contained in the bill of costs did not amount to a failure to give reasons
The court accepted that the applicants requested reasons by letter dated 22nd September 2015 and the taxing officer merely noted the reasons were in the bill of costs. However, on perusal of the ruling, the judge found the taxing officer was clear on how she arrived at the disputed amounts. Relying on Gathenji & Co. Advocates, the ruling itself constitutes the reasons. No allegation of manifest excess was made.
Whether the court should interfere with the taxing officer's discretion
The court declined to interfere, finding the taxation reasonable absent any allegation that the amounts were inordinately high
The respondents argued the taxing officer exercised a discretion that cannot be challenged unless exercised unjudicially, and that the taxed costs were not manifestly excessive. The judge found the taxing officer's findings reasonable and noted there was no allegation the amounts were inordinately high, so the reference could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- If a taxing officer totally fails to record and forward reasons to the objector, that is a good ground for a reference and the absence of reasons does not preclude a competent reference
- The 'reasons' of a taxing officer are no more than his ruling on the matter; once the ruling has been made, signed and delivered, there is no need to request separate reasons
Court orders
#- 1.The application (Chamber Summons dated 22nd October 2015) is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer (High Court)
- Ruling delivered 9th September 2015 by taxing master I. N. Barasa
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge against a taxing officer's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Republic v Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1593 (KLR)[2018] KEELC 1593 (KLR)4 Oct 2018
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutuku Mutinga & another v Joreth Limited & 2 others [2017] KEELC 3142 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Chamber Summons dated 22nd October 2015 (arising from Originating Summons dated 29th April 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3142/eng@2017-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.