Mary Wairimu Dames v Langata Development Company Limited [2021] KEELC 1637 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Ksh 26.7 million legal fee award, confirming judges will not overturn a taxing officer's decision without proof of a genuine legal error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to exhibit a certificate of costs renders a reference incompetent
It does not; the reference was properly filed
Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order prescribes the procedure for a reference: notice of objection within 14 days, reasons from the taxing officer, then application to the judge in chambers. The provision requires notice of objection and the ruling, not a certificate of costs, and no other provision mandates one. Lack of a certificate therefore cannot invalidate a reference.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in awarding Ksh 20,000,000 instruction fees where the value of the subject matter was unascertainable
No error of principle; the discretion was properly exercised
Both parties accepted the value was unascertainable, entitling the taxing officer to use her discretion per Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates and Peter Muthoka v Ochieng. She considered the nature of the suit, the interest of the parties, the care and labour of counsel, the 12 years the suit took, and the appreciation in land value, and gave reasons. The court cannot upset a taxation merely because the amount seems high.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of costs is not a mandatory accompaniment to a reference challenging a taxing master's ruling
- Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from the pleadings, the taxing officer may exercise discretion to assess instruction fees
- A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment merely because he would have allowed a different amount; interference requires error of principle that substantially affected quantum and caused injustice
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is declined and dismissed
- 2.Each party shall meet their respective costs of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - reference to a judge in chambers against a taxing master's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Wairimu Dames v Langata Development Company Limited [2021] KEELC 1637 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Chamber Summons application dated 27th May 2021 (reference against Taxing Master's ruling of 15th April 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1637/eng@2021-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.