Manyonge Wanyama and Associates Advocates v County Government of Nyeri & another [2020] KEELC 3421 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing master's citation of non-existent paragraph 1(k) of Schedule 6 was an error of principle
No - it was a typographical error not going to the crux of the matter, curable under Article 159(2)(d); the discretion exercised in awarding Kshs.120,000/- cannot be faulted
The taxing master cited paragraph 1(k) which does not exist in Schedule 6, but the court treated this as a typographical slip that did not affect the substance of the assessment. The taxing master had properly considered that the suit involved defending a claim over two parcels of land, and awarded Kshs.120,000/- within her discretion under paragraph 1(j)(ii). A mere mis-reference of a provision, absent demonstrable effect on the assessment, does not amount to an error of principle justifying interference on a reference.
Whether the getting up fee (item 2) was properly taxed
Yes - the matter was not confirmed for hearing, and the fee at 1/3 of the instruction fee was in order
Under Schedule 6 paragraph 2, a getting up fee of not less than one-third of the instruction fee is allowed where issues are joined. The proviso states no fee is chargeable until the case is confirmed for hearing. Since this matter was settled before confirmation of hearing, the getting up fee awarded was appropriate and there was no compelling reason to interfere with that item of the bill.
Whether the taxing master erred in failing to consider complexity and importance of the matter
No - complexity was not cogently demonstrated nor placed before the taxing master; the responsibility entrusted to counsel was ordinary
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the matter was complex; the taxing master could only deal with what was placed before her. The court found the nature of the forensic responsibility was ordinary, calling for normal professional diligence. Nothing showed the instruction fee awarded was inadequate or outside the scale fees, so there was no basis for interference with the discretionary award.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's discretion on taxation unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive or low
- Where an error of principle is disclosed, the normal practice is to remit for reassessment
- A mis-citation of a non-existent provision may be a typographical error curable under Article 159(2)(d) where it does not go to the crux of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The reference (Chamber Summons dated 25th October 2019) is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 44 of the Advocates Act, Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
- Gerald Kanyago Muthakia v Dedan Kimathi University of Technology [2021] KEELRC 1331 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1331 (KLR)30 Jun 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manyonge Wanyama and Associates Advocates v County Government of Nyeri & another [2020] KEELC 3421 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Chamber Summons dated 25th October 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3421/eng@2020-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.