Philip Saoina & 6 others v Nasser Abdulhamid Ahmed & 2 others [2021] KEELC 1812 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Taxing Master's decision to reduce legal fees, confirming courts only intervene where a taxing officer makes a clear error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master's taxation of the instruction fee at Kshs. 1,000,000 (taxing off Kshs. 3,860,000 from the Kshs. 4,860,000 billed) was arbitrary or based on an error of principle
The Taxing Master's decision was not arbitrary; he gave reasons, declined to rely on a unilateral valuation report, and exercised his discretion properly, so the court would not interfere
The court applied the Premchand Raichand principles and the test in Republic v Ministry of Agriculture ex parte Muchiri W'Njuguna that interference is only warranted on an error of principle or where the fee is manifestly excessive. The Taxing Master expressly gave reasons, refused to rely on the valuation report prepared at the 1st Respondent's instance without the Applicants' participation, and considered the work undertaken by counsel. The Applicants also failed to identify any error in principle or contest any other line item in the Bill of Costs.
Whether the Applicants identified any other item in the Bill of Costs warranting interference
No; apart from the instruction fee, the Applicants identified no other line item where the Taxing Master erred, and the court would not interfere with those items
The court noted that the Applicants' complaint was confined to the amount taxed as instruction fees. Having failed to highlight any other line item where the Taxing Master allegedly erred in arriving at his decision, the court declined to interfere with the rest of the taxation, reinforcing the burden on a party seeking to set aside a taxing officer's decision to demonstrate an error of principle.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision on taxation unless it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference that it was based on an error of principle
- The value of the subject matter of a suit for purposes of taxation of a bill of costs ought to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not so ascertainable, the taxing officer may use his discretion to assess such instruction fee as he considers just
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Philip Saoina & 6 others v Nasser Abdulhamid Ahmed & 2 others [2021] KEELC 1812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Chamber Summons application dated 19th December, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1812/eng@2021-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.