Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 21st August 2023 (Taxation Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order)· [2024] KEELC 1603 (KLR)

Munga & 9 others v Munga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E125 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1603 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 March 2024
OAO. A. Angote
1,303 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed a challenge to a taxing master's ruling, confirming that even self-represented Kenyans can recover legal consultation and travel costs if they have receipts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant brought a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order challenging the taxing master's ruling of 9th August 2023, by which items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Respondent's bill of disbursements dated 5th May 2023 were allowed. The Applicant argued that the Respondent, a lay litigant acting in person, should not recover the cost of a copy of a ruling, legal consultation fees, taxi and bus fare for virtual attendances, or copying charges. He also sought costs on the bill of costs dated 22nd July 2022, which the taxing master had struck out with no order as to costs. The Respondent countered that he had receipts for every disbursement, had not held himself out as an advocate, and had to travel from Gachie, which lacks stable internet, to access the court's virtual facilities. The court held that the award of costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretionary and saw no reason to fault the taxing master's refusal of costs on the struck-out bill. On the challenged items, receipts from the Judiciary, Emmerson Koome Muketha Advocate, taxi operators and Earthscope Cyber satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that each amount was properly taxed; the Respondent was awarded less than the Applicant claimed under items 6 and 10. All challenges failed and the reference was dismissed with no order as to costs on 14th March 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Costs on a struck-out bill of costs

Holding

The taxing master's refusal to award costs on the struck-out bill was a proper exercise of discretion and is not faulted

Reasoning

Costs are discretionary under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The taxing master struck out the party-and-party bill filed by a lay person and gave reasons for not awarding costs. In a Rule 11 reference the court will not disturb a discretionary decision absent demonstrated error.

p. 2
02

Taxation of disbursements incurred by a lay litigant

Holding

All challenged items (copy of ruling, legal consultation, travel for virtual appearance, bus fare, printing/copying) were properly taxed on receipts

Reasoning

The Respondent, a lay person from Gachie with no stable internet, produced receipts supporting each disbursement: Judiciary receipt for the ruling copy, receipts from Emmerson Koome Muketha Advocate for consultation, taxi receipts for travelling to the court's virtual desk, and a cyber receipt for printing. He did not hold himself out as an advocate, so awarding consultation costs was proper.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The award of costs is discretionary and a taxing master's reasoned refusal to award costs should not be disturbed
  • A party may recover the cost of obtaining a copy of a ruling and payment for legal consultation even where the party acts in person

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is dismissed with no order as to costs; the taxing master's decision on items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 is upheld

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
On appeal from
Deputy Registrar (Taxing Master)
Bill of costs dated 5th May 2023; 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 and Land Miscellaneous Case E125 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons dated 21st August 2023 (Taxation Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1603/eng@2024-03-14

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