Mutanga Tea and Coffee Company Ltd v Shikara Limited & another
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Ascertainment of the value of the subject matter for instruction fees
The taxing master did not err in finding that the value of the subject matter could not be discerned from the pleadings; the value of the project asserted by the applicant was never established and the cause of action concerned legality of planning permission, not proprietary interests.
The suit was dismissed on a preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction. The applicant pegged the subject matter on the value of the project, but that value was never established. The cause of action was not about ownership or proprietary interests but the legality of the grant of planning permission, so the value could not be easily discerned and taxing off Kshs 5,342,062.45 was not an error.
Limits on interference with a taxing master's discretion
The taxing master's judicial discretion can only be interfered with where an error of principle is established, the fee is manifestly excessive, or the discretion was exercised capriciously and in abuse of correct principles of law.
Relying on First American Bank of Kenya v Shah, Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Republic v Minister for Agriculture ex parte Samuel Muchiri W'njuguna, the court held that quantum is discretionary and the superior court will not interfere merely because it thinks the award too high or too low; only errors of principle or manifest excess justify intervention, none of which was shown here.
Relevance of bulkiness, complexity and novelty of the proceedings
Bulk is addressed under drawing, copies, correspondence and perusals; the suit was disposed of on a preliminary objection on the narrow question of jurisdiction, so the striking-out application was superfluous and there was no novelty, the point being settled in Speaker of the National Assembly v Njenga Karume.
The court found the matter turned on the well-established jurisdictional principle in Speaker of the National Assembly v Njenga Karume, which the court below in fact relied upon. The bulky documents were covered by fees for drawing, perusing and photocopying, and the motion of July 7, 2011 was superfluous since no costs were awarded on it.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not 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 so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- Taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise but a matter of opinion based on experience; interference is warranted only where the award amounts to an injustice or discloses an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated September 19, 2014 is dismissed with costs
- 2.It is so ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the inherent powers of the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutanga Tea and Coffee Company Ltd v Shikara Limited & another", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 20 of 2021 (Formerly HCCC No. 171 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13349/eng@2022-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.