Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedReference dated 20th April 2018· [2019] KEELC 1397 (KLR)

Geoffrey Njuguna Munga v Geoffrey Karongo & 9 others [2019] KEELC 1397 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
4 October 2019
LGL. Gacheru
2,505 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

#

A Kenyan High Court cut a Kshs.75,000 fee, ruling that an application for extension of time to appeal is an application, not a suit, for taxation purposes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, by a Reference dated 20th April 2018, sought to set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer (Deputy Registrar) delivered on 22nd March 2018 taxing instruction fees at Kshs.75,000/= on item 1 of a party and party bill of costs dated 23rd October 2017. The bill arose from an application to appeal out of time, which was dismissed with costs to the Respondents. The Applicant contended the taxing officer applied the wrong principle and failed to exercise her discretion judiciously, proposing a fee of Kshs.20,000/= for a simple application heard and determined quickly. The Respondents opposed via Grounds of Opposition, arguing the Deputy Registrar correctly applied the law, that the matter involved additional work due to transfer from Nairobi to Thika, and that as a standalone proceeding akin to a suit the fees under Schedule 6 could not be considered inordinately high. The Court framed the issue as whether the taxing officer used the wrong principle. Relying on Black's Law Dictionary, it distinguished a suit (pursuing a remedy or enforcing a right) from an application (seeking a favour), and held the proceedings were an Application, not a standalone suit. Applying the principles in Republic v Kenyatta University Ex parte Wellington Kihato Wamburu and Republic v Ministry of Agriculture Ex parte Muchiri W'njuguna, the Court held the taxing master erred in principle by treating the Application as a suit, resulting in an inordinately high fee. The Court set aside the award of Kshs.75,000/= on item 1 and remitted the bill for fresh taxation with directions that the matter was an application and that its nature, length and complexity be considered. The Reference was allowed with costs to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing master used the wrong principle

Holding

Yes - she treated the Miscellaneous Application as a suit, leading to an inordinately high instruction fee of Kshs.75,000/=, justifying interference and remittal

Reasoning

A suit involves pursuing a remedy or enforcement of a right, while an Application pursues a favour within the court's discretion. The proceedings seeking extension of time to appeal were an Application, as confirmed by the jurat. By treating it as a suit, the taxing officer applied the wrong principle, and the normal practice upon an error of principle is to remit for reassessment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party pursuing a favour (e.g. leave to appeal out of time) files an Application, not a suit; treating an Application as a suit in taxing instructions fees is an error of principle warranting interference

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The decision of the taxing officer allowing Kshs.75,000/= on Item 1 of the bill of costs is set aside
  2. 2.The bill of costs dated 23rd October 2017 is remitted for fresh taxation before the taxing officer with directions
  3. 3.Costs of the Reference to the Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderSchedule 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Republic…Vs…Kenyatta University & Another, Ex parte Wellington Kihato Wamburu
    [2018] eKLR
  • Republic…Vs…Ministry of Agriculture & 2 Others, Ex parte Muchiri W'njuguna & 6 Others
    (2006) eKLR
On appeal from
null
null
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over the Deputy Registrar's taxation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Njuguna Munga v Geoffrey Karongo & 9 others [2019] KEELC 1397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Reference dated 20th April 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1397/eng@2019-10-04

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