Rogers Mugumya t/a Mugumya and Company Advocates v Josephine Chesang Chepkwong Salat
The bottom line
#A Kericho court slashed a lawyer's Kshs 5 million fee award, ruling it unexplained and excessive for a land case settled without full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the reference under Rule 11(1)
The reference was competent; the applicant's letter of 29th June 2023 objecting to the taxation and seeking reasons was a valid notice in writing filed within the 14-day period.
Rule 11(1) requires notice in writing within fourteen days of the decision. The Taxing Officer's ruling was delivered on 21st June 2023 and the applicant's letter of 29th June 2023, copied to the respondent, objected to the decision in its entirety and sought reasons. The court held this letter satisfied Rule 11(1) within the stipulated period, and although Rule 11(2) reasons were not furnished, there was substantial compliance per Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara.
Errors of principle in taxing instruction fees
The Taxing Master erred in principle by awarding Kshs 5,000,000 as instruction fees without explaining how the figure was reached, despite finding the matter was settled by consent at Kshs 20,000,000 and was neither complex nor novel.
Under Schedule 6 paragraph 1(b), where settlement is reached prior to confirmation of the first hearing date, the fee is 85% of the fee chargeable under item 1(b). The Taxing Master himself recorded that the matter was not complex or novel and never went to full trial, yet awarded a sum far beyond the minimum without any explanation. That failure to exercise discretion judiciously amounted to an error of principle warranting interference and remittal.
Legal principles established
#- A letter objecting to a taxation decision and seeking reasons, filed within 14 days, constitutes a valid notice in writing under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
- Failure by a Taxing Officer to record and forward reasons for a taxation decision is a good ground for a reference and does not preclude a competent reference; substantial compliance with Rule 11(2) suffices.
- A court may interfere with a Taxing Master's discretion only on an error of principle or where the fee is manifestly excessive or low; where errors of principle exist, the normal practice is remittal for reassessment.
Court orders
#- 1.The taxation of the Respondent's Bill of Costs dated 3rd May, 2023 in reference to Item No 1 is set aside.
- 2.The said Bill of Costs be and is hereby remitted back to another Deputy Registrar to be taxed afresh on the item objected to by the Applicant.
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs for this Application.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Advocates Act, Cap 16; Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014, Rule 11; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rogers Mugumya t/a Mugumya and Company Advocates v Josephine Chesang Chepkwong Salat", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E018 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21962/eng@2023-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.