Mary Wangui Karanja & another v Joseph Njenga & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2129 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a challenge to a Kshs 844,837 costs award, confirming judges will rarely disturb a taxing officer's decision without proof of a clear error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by considering inflationary trends and the effort employed by counsel in assessing instruction fees
No error of principle: both factors fall within the recognized criteria for assessing instruction fees where the value of the subject matter is unascertainable
The court set out verbatim the taxing officer's criteria and found she had regard to the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Joreth and Premchand Raichand principles. General conduct of proceedings, which includes professional effort, is a relevant factor under Joreth. Inflation could be considered because instructions were implemented over 19 years of litigation.
Whether Kshs 500,000 instruction fees was manifestly excessive
It was not inordinately high, given the 11.5-acre land dispute and that the fee covered both the main suit and the counter-claim raising constitutional issues
The court held that even absent the contested factors, the award could not be said to be manifestly high. The dispute concerned 11.5 acres in Kabete and the instruction fee covered two suits in one - the main suit and the counter-claim - which the taxing officer expressly considered.
Whether the awards on the other 51 contested items were excessive
Matters of quantum belong to the taxing officer; absent evidence identifying which items exceeded scale fees, the court declines to interfere
The taxing officer taxed off items drawn outside scale fees and allowed items drawn to scale. The applicant did not identify which item went beyond which scale. Citing Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, the court held a judge should not enter the arena of quantum without evidence of error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion on quantum unless an error of principle or manifest excessiveness is shown
- Professional effort employed by counsel is part of the general conduct of the matter, a relevant factor in assessing instruction fees
- Inflationary trends may properly be taken into account where instructions were implemented over a long period
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 9/12/2018 fails and is dismissed
- 2.The plaintiffs shall have costs of the chamber summons
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference to a judge of the superior court against a taxing officer's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Wangui Karanja & another v Joseph Njenga & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated on the face of the ruling (chamber summons dated 9/12/2018 arising from a party and party bill of costs dated 11/2/2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2129/eng@2020-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.