Kimani Richu & Associates Advocates v Centurion Holdings Limited [2018] KEELC 3188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in taxing a conveyancing bill under Schedule V instead of Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014
She erred; Schedule 1 covers sale and purchase of land services and applies even where the conveyance was not completed
The Remuneration Order categorises and costs services by schedule; the First Part of Schedule 1 covers sales and purchases of land. Taxing conveyancing services under a schedule not covering conveyancing risks a figure inordinately high or low. The taxing officer's view that an incomplete sale is not provided for under Schedule 1 was an error; she should have applied Schedule 1 while considering the extent of services rendered and what remained to complete the conveyance.
Whether an instruction fee of Kshs 100,000 for an aborted conveyance of property worth Kshs 85,000,000 was manifestly low
Yes, it was manifestly low and did not accord with the services rendered
The advocate executed the agreement for sale, investigated the title, and prepared and sent transfer instruments before the vendor failed to avail completion documents. A fee of Kshs 100,000 arrived at under the wrong schedule bore no rational relationship to the value of the subject matter and the services rendered, amounting to a wrong principle producing a wrong result.
Legal principles established
#- In taxing a conveyancing brief, whether completed or not, the taxing officer must be guided by the schedule covering the relevant services; using the wrong schedule or baseline is an error of principle
- The baseline for assessing fees on an incomplete conveyance is the instruction fee stipulated for a completed conveyance, proportionately adjusted for services actually rendered
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 13/3/2017 is allowed
- 2.The bill of costs is remitted to the taxing officer for fresh taxation under Schedule 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to review a taxing officer's decision on a reference by way of chamber summons under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimani Richu & Associates Advocates v Centurion Holdings Limited [2018] KEELC 3188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Miscellaneous Application (Reference) re Bill of Costs dated 2/9/2016 (chamber summons dated 13/3/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3188/eng@2018-05-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.