Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 118 (KLR)

Rural Housing Estates Ltd v Ghani & another (Environment and Land Case 237 of 2012) [2024] KEELC 118 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 January 2024
EOE. OBAGA
786 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret on a notice of motion dated 22.9.2023, brought as a reference under Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act against a taxing officer's ruling delivered on 18.8.2023. The Applicant, who had lost a suit in which it sought to evict the Respondent, contended that the taxing officer allowed an excessive amount under items 1 and 2 of the Party and Party bill of costs filed on 22.6.2023, and that he based instruction fees on a valuation report concerning a property that was not the subject of the litigation. The Applicant sought setting aside of the taxation and a fresh taxation of items 1 and 2 by a different taxing officer. The Respondent opposed, arguing the reference was brought in bad faith to delay realisation of costs, and that the two parcels concerned - Eldoret Municipality Block 15/334 and Block 15/2309 - are one and the same. The court framed a single issue: whether the taxing officer was wrong in ascertaining the value of the subject matter. It restated that interference lies only where an error of principle is shown. Examining the pleadings, the court found that the Respondent's 1994 exchange agreement concerned Block 15/334 (about 20 acres), of which he had possession, and that the Applicant's title to Block 15/2309 was found fraudulently procured and ordered cancelled; the land actually in dispute was Block 15/334, whose valuation the taxing officer properly applied. Getting up fees follow instruction fees. The reference was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by basing instruction fees on a valuation of a property not subject to the litigation

Holding

No error of principle; the parcel the Applicant sued over (Block 15/2309) was in substance the same land as Block 15/334, occupied by the Respondent, so reliance on the valuation of Block 15/334 was correct

Reasoning

The court reviewed the pleadings and found that the Respondent's 1994 exchange agreement concerned LR Eldoret Municipality Block 15/334, of which he took possession. The Applicant sued for eviction in respect of Block 15/2309, claiming title obtained in 2004, but that title was found fraudulently procured and ordered cancelled. The land actually in dispute was therefore Block 15/334, and the taxing officer correctly relied on its valuation. No error of principle was established and the reference failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may only interfere with a taxing officer's discretion where an error of principle is demonstrated
  • Getting up fees automatically follows what is found due on instruction fees

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActRule 11(1) and (2)
  • Advocate's Remuneration OrderNot specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act (reference against a taxing officer's decision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rural Housing Estates Ltd v Ghani & another (Environment and Land Case 237 of 2012) [2024] KEELC 118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/118/eng@2024-01-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.