C.M. Thuku & Company v Kimani (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E216 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 433 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court upheld a Kshs 975,000 advocate's fee award, ruling that challenging taxation requires proving an error of principle, not mere disagreement with the amount.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reference was time barred
The reference was filed in good time because the 14-day period runs from receipt of the taxing officer's reasons, and the notice of objection was filed in time
The court read paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, noting the word 'may' connotes available options rather than a rigid procedure. Since the notice of objection was filed on 17th February 2023 and reasons were received on 31st March 2023, the reference filed thereafter was within the 14 days allowed by Rule 11(2). The claim that it was 41 days late was rejected.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing the bill at Kshs 975,000
No error of principle was shown; the Taxing Officer gave sufficient and reasonable reasons, and the reference was dismissed
Applying the Premchand Raichand principles and Konosi on the taxing officer's jurisdiction, the court perused the taxation ruling and found the Taxing Officer had given reasons: the 1994 consideration could not be the basis for instruction fees, the value of the subject matter had appreciated, and the interests of the parties and care and labour of counsel were considered. Interference is warranted only on an error of principle or manifestly excessive award, neither of which was demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the 14-day period for filing a reference runs from receipt of the taxing officer's reasons, not from the filing of the notice of objection
- A reference will not be allowed unless the applicant demonstrates that the taxing officer misdirected himself on a principle or that the assessment was manifestly extravagant
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons Application dated 3rd April 2023 is unmerited and is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a taxing officer's decision to a judge in chambers)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "C.M. Thuku & Company v Kimani (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E216 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 433 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons application dated 3rd April 2023 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/433/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.