Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons application dated 20th June 2019 (Reference against Taxing Officer's decision of 18th April 2019)· [2020] KEELC 1638 (KLR)

Dickson Jomo Kebatta v Deposit Insurance Corporations in Liquidation of Middle Africa Finance Ltd [2020] KEELC 1638 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
24 July 2020
1,130 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Malindi dismissed a client's challenge to his lawyer's taxed fees, confirming courts rarely disturb a Taxing Officer's decision without proof of an error of principle.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Dickson Jomo Kebatta (Respondent) brought a Chamber Summons reference dated 20th June 2019 challenging the decision of the Taxing Officer, Honourable D. Wasike, Deputy Registrar, delivered on 18th April 2019 taxing Item 1 (instruction fees) of the Bill of Costs dated 27th November 2017 filed by Munyithya, Mutugi, Umara and Muzna Co. Advocates (Applicant). The Respondent alleged the Taxing Officer misdirected herself, ignored relevant factors, and taxed the instruction fee at an exorbitant Kshs 679,622.42 instead of basing the fee on a principal sum of Kshs 100,000. The Applicant opposed, asserting the fee awarded was Kshs 628,862.45, properly computed under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (2014). Justice J.O. Olola applied the test in Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 Others Ex Parte Muchiri W. Njuguna & 6 Others (2006) eKLR that a court interferes with a Taxing Officer's award only where it rests on an error of principle or is so high or low as to amount to an injustice. On the record, the Taxing Officer taxed Item 1 at Kshs 628,862.45, not the figure cited by the Respondent, and used a subject-matter value of Kshs 35,989,211.95 that the Respondent himself had adopted in his own submissions before the Deputy Registrar, computing an even higher fee. No error of principle or manifest excess was found. The reference was dismissed with costs on 24th July 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer's taxation of Item 1 (instruction fees) was based on an error of principle or was manifestly excessive

Holding

No error of principle was established; the fee of Kshs 628,862.45 was properly computed under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (2014) and was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable or unconscionable

Reasoning

The court perused the Taxing Officer's ruling, which applied paragraph 1(b) with a 75% reduction because the matter was determined summarily, and which used an undisputed subject-matter value of Kshs 35,989,211.95. The Respondent's own written submissions before the Deputy Registrar had adopted that same value and computed an even higher instruction fee, exceeding the taxed figure by more than Kshs 50,000. The court applied the settled test that interference is warranted only for error of principle or manifest excess, and found the Respondent's complaint baseless.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will only interfere with a Taxing Officer's award where the decision was based on an error of principle or where the fee was so high or so low as to amount to an injustice; it is an error of principle to take into account irrelevant factors or to omit to consider relevant factors

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Reference against the decision on taxation of the Taxing Officer Honourable D. Wasike made on 18th April 2019 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Reference are awarded to the Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 6, Item 1(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014Schedule 6, Item 1(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Republic -vs- Ministry of Agriculture & 2 Others Ex Parte Muchiri W. Njuguna & 6 Others
    (2006) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a decision of the Taxing Officer on taxation of costs (Chamber Summons under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dickson Jomo Kebatta v Deposit Insurance Corporations in Liquidation of Middle Africa Finance Ltd [2020] KEELC 1638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Chamber Summons application dated 20th June 2019 (Reference against Taxing Officer's decision of 18th April 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1638/eng@2020-07-24

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