Peter Njoroge Gatua & 351 others v Willmac Cattle Farm Limited [2020] KEELC 2388 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed it will rarely overturn a Taxing Master's legal fee decision unless an error of principle or a clearly excessive or inadequate fee is shown.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle by failing to base instruction fees on the value of the subject property
No error established. The value of the subject matter is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where the claim was an Originating Summons for adverse possession and the matter was not complex or opposed, the fixed scale fees under Schedule 6 were appropriate, and the Taxing Master's discretion was properly exercised
The court applied First American Bank and Joreth Ltd v Kigano principles, noting relevant factors include the nature and importance of the matter, value of subject matter, interest of parties and conduct of proceedings. The Applicant came on record in 2016, filed a two-page Replying Affidavit, and the matter never proceeded to hearing; nothing showed complexity or extraordinary industry. The failure to demonstrate the calculation was erroneous defeated the application.
Whether the fee awarded was manifestly low so as to justify interference
The fee awarded was neither manifestly excessive nor manifestly low; no injustice was shown
Relying on the Ssemogerere decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda, the court held that the taxing officer's opinion on the reasonable fee is not to be interfered with lightly and there must be a compelling reason. The Applicant did not cogently demonstrate complexity, time, or industry that would warrant a fee beyond the scale.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with the taxing officer's discretion on taxation unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive or low
- Where errors of principle are disclosed, the normal practice is to remit for reassessment; the court is not entitled to upset a taxation merely because it considers the amount high
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may use discretion to assess a just instruction fee
- There is no formula for calculating instruction fees; it is an intricate balancing act and the taxing officer's opinion on the reasonable fee is not to be interfered with lightly
Court orders
#- 1.The Application (which the court in its final order refers to as dated the 13th August 2019) is dismissed
- 2.No costs awarded (application dismissed with no cost)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the Environment and Land Court to review/set aside the Taxing Master's decision on a Bill of Costs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Njoroge Gatua & 351 others v Willmac Cattle Farm Limited [2020] KEELC 2388 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 19th September 2019 (in the suit arising from Originating Summons re LR No. 20902/IR No. 66639). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2388/eng@2020-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.