Nuru Chepleting Choge v Rajab Kipkosgei Magut & 2 others [2021] KEELC 3245 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a Kshs 2.4 million legal fee award as excessive, ruling fees must reflect actual work done and be remitted for fresh taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master's award of Kshs. 2,709,883.00 was manifestly excessive and based on a wrong principle
Yes; the award of instruction fees of Kshs. 2,400,000.00 was manifestly high given that the suit was withdrawn before any substantial steps, the valuation report used was disputed, and limited work had been done
The court noted the suit was withdrawn before hearing, no disbursements or attendance costs had accrued, the suit was not heard on merit, and the valuation report underpinning the instruction fees was disputed as to when it was filed. Following the principles in National Oil Corporation and Evans M. Guku, an award of that magnitude where the suit terminated almost immediately amounted to an error of principle warranting interference.
What is the threshold for a judge to interfere with a Taxing Master's discretion
Interference is warranted only where the taxing decision was based on an error of principle, took into account irrelevant factors or omitted relevant factors, or was so high or low as to amount to an injustice
Relying on National Oil Corporation Ltd v Real Energy Ltd, Visser v Gubb, Republic v Ministry of Agriculture Ex parte Muchiri W'njuguna and Premchand Raichand, the court reiterated that quantum alone is within the Taxing Master's discretion, but flawed principles or manifest excessiveness justify intervention, and the normal remedy is remittal for reassessment.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of an error of principle
- Where a taxing decision discloses errors of principle, the normal practice is to remit it back to the taxing officer for reassessment
- A suit commenced on behalf of a deceased's estate without letters of administration is null and void ab initio
Court orders
#- 1.The matter be remitted to another Taxing Master other than the one who dealt with the taxation for fresh taxation taking into consideration the issues raised by the court
- 2.The taxation and all consequential orders are set aside
- 3.It is advisable that the parties try mediation to come up with an amicable settlement
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (Taxing Master), Environment and Land Court, Eldoret
- Taxation of Bill of Costs dated 26th November 2019 in ELDORET E&L CASE NO. 48 OF 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from taxation by the Deputy Registrar under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nuru Chepleting Choge v Rajab Kipkosgei Magut & 2 others [2021] KEELC 3245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELDORET E&L CASE NO. 48 OF 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3245/eng@2021-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.