Munga & 9 others v Munga (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E124 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1451 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed that Kenyan litigants acting in person can recover paid legal advice and travel costs if they keep receipts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Costs on the struck-out bill of costs dated 22nd July 2022
The taxing master's refusal to award costs was a lawful exercise of discretion and was not disturbed
The award of costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretionary. The taxing master struck out the bill because the Respondent was a lay person but gave reasons for making no order as to costs. The court found no basis to fault that discretionary decision, so the Applicant's claim to costs on the dismissed bill failed.
Whether legal consultation fees (items 2 and 3) were properly awarded to a lay person
The items were rightfully taxed because the Respondent paid an advocate for consultation and produced receipts
The Applicant argued the Respondent, being in person and not an advocate, could not receive legal fees. The Respondent produced two receipts issued by Emmerson Koome Muketha Advocate for legal consultation and legal advice. The court found the evidence supported the Respondent's assertion that he did not hold himself out as an advocate but merely sought advice, which was within his rights.
Whether travelling costs (items 5, 6 and 11) were properly awarded where attendance was said to be virtual
The awards were justified because the Respondent lacked stable internet at Gachie and had to travel to access the virtual court facilities
The Applicant contended taxi and bus fares were unjustified since attendance was virtual. The Respondent explained he hails from Gachie village with no stable internet connection and had to travel to the Court station to use the virtual facilities. Receipts were produced, and on a balance of probabilities the explanation was found plausible. The court also noted the Respondent was awarded Kshs. 100 as bus fare under item 6, not Kshs. 400 as claimed.
Whether item 1 (copy of ruling) and item 10 (copying charges) were properly taxed
Both items were properly taxed as supported by receipts
Item 1 covered the cost of a copy of the ruling issued by the Judiciary at Kshs. 1,000 with a receipt; a party is entitled to request and be reimbursed for a copy of a ruling. Item 10 concerned printing, scanning and photocopying evidenced by a receipt from Earthscope Cyber dated 1st December 2021; the amount actually awarded was Kshs. 800, not Kshs. 1,080 as the Applicant claimed.
Legal principles established
#- The award of costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretionary and a taxing master's reasoned exercise of that discretion should not be lightly interfered with
- A party is entitled to reimbursement of properly receipted disbursements, including consultation fees paid to an advocate, even where the party acts in person and does not hold themselves out as an advocate
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed with no order as to costs
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (taxing master)
- Ruling dated 9th August 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munga & 9 others v Munga (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E124 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1451 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons dated 21st August 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1451/eng@2024-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.