Mutuura alias Rose Wangari Njuguna v Nachu Ballast Masters Limited & 3 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a late fee challenge for unexplained delay but ordered a fresh calculation of legal costs because the original figure lacked a clear basis.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a Reference out of time
Refused - the Respondent failed to explain the delay or show personal steps to mitigate it
Applying Salat principles and Sakiri v Anyumba, the Court found the office-relocation excuse unsupported by evidence and noted the Respondent took no personal steps despite knowing of the award. Rules and timelines must be respected even under Article 159's oxygen principles.
Determination of subject value of the suit land for instruction fees
The Taxing Master's adoption of Kshs. 15 Million was an error of principle - not anchored on clear computation - warranting remission for fresh assessment
The pleadings and annexures did not yield a determinable value; the Taxing Master attempted an 'average' of the 2012 sale agreement and 2019 valuation without clear computation. Following Joreth, Vipul and Muthoka, the figure was unsupported, amounting to an error of principle justifying interference.
Separate instruction and getting up fees for each of three Defendants
No error - lump sum charging affirmed because the defence was filed jointly for all three Applicants
Nguruman and Desai were distinguished: there the defendants clearly and separately denied liability or instructions emanated separately. Here the Applicants were co-related (director/witness relationships) and one amended defence covered all three, so separate fees were unjustified.
Timeliness of the Applicants' Reference
The Reference was filed within the statutory timelines under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The Notice of Objection was filed within 14 days of the 25/10/2022 ruling and the Reference on 2/11/2022, within time. The Respondent's objection on this limb failed.
Legal principles established
#- A Taxing Master's award will not be disturbed unless based on an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive or low
- The value of the subject matter for taxation must be drawn from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; discretion applies only where the value is not ascertainable from those sources
- Blaming one's advocate alone does not justify extension of time; the litigant must show personal steps to mitigate the delay
- Where an amended defence is filed jointly for co-related defendants, a lump sum instruction and getting up fee is proper rather than separate fees per defendant
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 14.2.2023 is struck out
- 2.The Chamber Summons dated 2.11.2022 partially succeeds - the Bill of Costs dated 27.4.2022 is remitted for fresh assessment in line with the Ruling
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Section 95 Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutuura alias Rose Wangari Njuguna v Nachu Ballast Masters Limited & 3 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 157 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21459/eng@2023-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.