Adega & 2 others v Kibos Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd & 4 others; Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation and Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Petition 8 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 2534 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court more than quadrupled a lawyer's fee award after finding the Taxing Master ignored the case's complexity and massive value.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference without formal reasons from the Taxing Master
The reference was competent because reasons were sought but not furnished and were discerned from other sources
The applicant wrote to the Taxing Master on November 18, 2021 seeking reasons for the taxation. None was forthcoming; the applicant instead learned from an annexure in the 4th Respondent's reference that the Taxing Master considered the reasons were in the ruling itself. The court held this made the reference properly before it.
Whether the award of Kshs. 3,000,000 instruction fees amounted to an error of principle
Yes; the Taxing Master failed to consider the Kshs. 100,000,000 compensation claim, restitution and complexity, and arrived at the wrong amount
The court applied the First American Bank and Muchiri W'Njuguna tests for interference with taxation. The bill arose from a constitutional petition seeking demolition of a factory, restitution and Kshs. 100,000,000 compensation, with a subject matter valued at over Kshs. 6 billion. Omitting these relevant factors was an error of principle warranting the court's substitution of its own figure.
Appropriate instruction fees for defending the petition
Kshs. 12,000,000 instruction fees plus getting up fees of one third, items 1 and 2 taxed at Kshs. 16,000,000
The court weighed the magnitude and complexity of the petition, which threatened closure of a factory with an investment in excess of Kshs. 6 billion, against the danger of excessive awards deterring public-interest litigation. It rejected the applicant's Kshs. 45,000,000 claim as excessive and fixed instruction fees at Kshs. 12,000,000 with getting-up fees of one third.
Legal principles established
#- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision where the fee awarded is so manifestly high or low as to amount to an injustice or to indicate an error of principle
- Interference is warranted where the taxing officer omitted to take into account relevant factors such as the value of the subject matter, compensation sought and complexity of the matter
Court orders
#- 1.Item 1 (instruction fees) taxed at Kshs. 12,000,000 with advocates getting up fees being 1/3 of the instruction fees
- 2.Items 1 and 2 taxed at Kshs. 16,000,000
- 3.Costs of the reference to the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014; court's supervisory jurisdiction over taxation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adega & 2 others v Kibos Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd & 4 others; Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation and Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Petition 8 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 2534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2534/eng@2022-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.