Njeri Kariuki Advocate v Mary Wamaitha Kaittany [2019] KEELC 3962 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan advocate lost her fee challenge because she never gave the taxing officer evidence to support her bill — bring your documents to taxation, not to the reference.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in basing instruction fees on the consideration in the deeds of transfer
No error; the advocate adduced no evidence of a different value, so the taxing officer properly relied on the deeds of transfer
The advocate filed only the bill of costs without an affidavit or supporting documents. The client filed a replying affidavit exhibiting deeds of transfer showing the consideration, which the advocate did not challenge. In the absence of controverting evidence, the taxing officer properly acted under paragraph 21 of the Advocates Remuneration Order by pegging fees on the consideration in the deeds.
Whether the taxing officer erred in taxing off items 2, 3 and 14 (correspondence items)
No error; item 2 was allowed as drawn and items 3 and 14 were properly taxed off as client correspondence included in instruction fees
The taxing officer's ruling distinguished chargeable correspondence from correspondence between advocate and client, which is included in the instruction fee. Items 3 and 14 fell in the latter category. The disbursement items were also taxed off for want of proof, as the advocate presented no evidential material to support them.
Legal principles established
#- A superior court interferes with a taxing officer's decision only on an error of principle or where the award is manifestly high or low as to amount to an injustice, or where discretion was not exercised judiciously
- An advocate must place evidential material supporting the bill of costs before the taxing officer at taxation, and cannot introduce evidence for the first time in submissions on a reference
Court orders
#- 1.The reference fails for lack of merit
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
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.
- Anthony Burugu & Co. Advocates v Electro Watts Limited [2021] KEELC 2219 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 2219 (KLR)9 Aug 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njeri Kariuki Advocate v Mary Wamaitha Kaittany [2019] KEELC 3962 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Reference under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order re Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 4/8/2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3962/eng@2019-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.