Furaha Eugenes v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2021] KEELC 2299 (KLR)
The bottom line
#JKUAT's challenge to a Kshs.621,817 legal fee award failed because its lawyers filed the objection 53 days late without the court's permission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness and competence of the reference under Rule 11
The reference was incompetent, having been filed 53 days after the ruling without leave
Rule 11 requires notice of objection within 14 days of the decision and a chamber summons within 14 days of receipt of reasons. The applicant filed the reference 53 days after the ruling of 23rd October 2019. Although the taxing officer replied that her reasons were contained in the ruling itself, the applicant never sought enlargement of time under Rule 11(4). Following Governors Balloon Safaris, the delay rendered the reference fatally incompetent.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle on instruction fees
No error; the taxing officer properly used the Rwandan judgment amount rather than the pleaded claim
The suit was withdrawn at a preliminary stage and never proceeded to full hearing. The taxing officer noted the subject matter had been heard and determined by a Rwandan court and used the amounts awarded there to calculate instruction fees. Applying First American Bank and Joreth Ltd, the court found she took into account relevant factors and did not err in law or principle.
Folios in items 2 and 3
The taxing officer did not err in failing to consider the number of folios
The court found no error of principle by the taxing officer in respect of the folio count in items 2 and 3, and dismissed the application in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order must be filed within the prescribed 14-day timelines; a reference filed out of time without leave of court under Rule 11(4) is fatally incompetent
- A delay of about 48 days after delivery of a taxation ruling renders a reference fatally incompetent
- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown to be based on an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where not so ascertainable the taxing officer may assess a just instruction fee
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 16th December 2019 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 1962 read with Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act - reference from a taxing officer's decision to a Judge in Chambers
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.
- Furaha Eugenes v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2021] KEELC 2299 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 2299 (KLR)22 Jul 2020applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Furaha Eugenes v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2021] KEELC 2299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Chamber Summons dated 16th December 2019 (arising from ELC No. 291 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2299/eng@2021-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.