Muchoki Kangata Njenga & Company Advocates v Bilha Njeri Kabiru & another [2019] KEELC 3595 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a law firm's bill of costs because it filed taxation directly before the judge instead of starting before the Deputy Registrar.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection met the settled definition of a preliminary objection
Yes - it was a point of law arising from uncontroverted facts requiring no further enquiry, and was upheld
The Court applied Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, testing the objection against the criteria of a point of law, matters arising from pleadings not controverted, absence of need for factual investigation, and no exercise of discretion. The Applicant filed no affidavit or submissions to controvert the Respondents' affidavit evidence, so the objection stood on unchallenged material and merited success.
Whether the Court had direct jurisdiction to tax the Advocate/Client bill
The objection that the Court does not assume direct jurisdiction of taxation was merited
Relying on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the Respondent argued the Court's taxation jurisdiction arises only following a decision of the Deputy Registrar or by consent of the parties by way of reference to the Judge, not by direct filing. The Court accepted this as a point of law supporting the preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a point of law not dependent on contested facts or evidence
- Facts deponed to in an affidavit and not controverted by the opposing party may be taken as truthful and may ground a preliminary objection
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is upheld
- 2.The Applicant's bill of costs is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxation jurisdiction under the Advocates Remuneration Order (paras 11 and 12) as invoked before the Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchoki Kangata Njenga & Company Advocates v Bilha Njeri Kabiru & another [2019] KEELC 3595 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Advocate/Client Bill of Costs filed 5/7/18 (arising from Muranga ELC 380 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3595/eng@2019-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.