Babu Law Firm v Kabiru (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E107 of 2020) [2023] KEELC 597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant waived its legal fees
The applicant did not intentionally waive its legal fees; the email of September 6, 2018 was an expression of frustration and the parties continued communicating about fees afterwards
The court examined the correspondence. The applicant rendered services, raised a fee note and disputed exorbitance claims. The September 6, 2018 email saying the applicant expected no payment was written out of frustration. A week later the respondent was still engaging on fees, showing no intentional abandonment of the right to fees. A waiver must be intentional and unequivocal.
Whether the taxing officer committed an error of principle
Yes - she dismissed the entire bill on the erroneous finding of waiver, taking into account an irrelevant consideration and omitting relevant ones
Applying Nyangito and Visser v Gubb, a court interferes with a taxing officer's discretion where the decision rests on an error of principle, disregards relevant factors or considers improper ones. The finding of waiver was wrong in law, so the dismissal of the bill was an error of principle entitling the court to interfere.
Whether the court should tax the bill itself
No; the bill was remitted to a different deputy registrar for taxation
Questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal, having more experience than the judge. As the taxing officer never taxed the bill, the court remitted it for taxation before a deputy registrar other than Hon D Orago, given the applicant's bias allegation.
Legal principles established
#- A waiver of legal fees must be an intentional act with knowledge; an email written out of frustration is not an intentional, unequivocal waiver
- A judge on reference may interfere with a taxing officer's decision where it is founded on an error of principle, and the general practice is to remit the question of quantum to a taxing officer
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling by the taxing officer dated June 24, 2021 dismissing the applicant's advocate-client bill of costs dated October 27, 2020 is set aside
- 2.The bill is remitted back to the taxing officer for taxation
- 3.The taxation shall be undertaken by any other deputy registrar apart from Hon D Orago
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer), Hon Diana Orago
- Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated October 27, 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from a taxing officer's decision (Chamber Summons dated July 7, 2021) under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Babu Law Firm v Kabiru (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E107 of 2020) [2023] KEELC 597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Chamber Summons dated July 7, 2021 (Reference from the decision of the Deputy Registrar dated June 24, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/597/eng@2023-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.