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 12th June 2023 (Miscellaneous Reference)· [2024] KEELC 3841 (KLR)

Murunga & Associates Advocates v Chemutut (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 3841 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 May 2024
MNMwangi Njoroge
998 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a client's challenge to taxed legal fees because the client skipped the mandatory written objection step before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Malindi (Mwangi Njoroge J, delivered electronically on 15th May 2024) determined a Chamber Summons dated 12th June 2023 by which the client/applicant sought stay of issuance of a certificate of costs, review or setting aside of a taxing master's ruling of 31st May 2023 delivered by the Deputy Registrar, Hon. D. Wasike, a determination of the amount already paid to the advocate, and directions for fresh assessment. The bill of costs had been taxed at Kshs. 606,037.25, and the applicant contended the taxing master erroneously recorded payments as Kshs. 200,000/- instead of Kshs. 343,350/- as shown by receipts. The advocate/respondent filed a preliminary objection dated 13th June 2023, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that no notice of objection or request for written reasons had been lodged under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The applicant relied on Rule 10 and argued no further reasons were required where reasons were already in the ruling. The court framed two issues: competency of the chamber summons under paragraph 11, and whether the taxing master erred. Holding that paragraph 11(1) and (2) prescribe the mandatory procedure - a written notice of objection within 14 days, followed by an application to a judge upon receipt of reasons - and that the applicant filed the reference without any notice of objection, the court upheld the objection and found the reference incompetent. The second issue was not reached. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the reference for non-compliance with paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The reference was incompetent because the applicant filed it without first giving a notice of objection in writing to the taxing officer as required by paragraph 11(1).

Reasoning

Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order prescribes the procedure for objecting to a taxing officer's decision: a party aggrieved must, within 14 days, give written notice of the items objected to, and may then apply to a judge by Chamber Summons upon receipt of the reasons. The court noted the ruling was delivered on 31st May 2023 and the applicant never filed a notice of objection nor sought written reasons before instituting the reference, so the preliminary objection was upheld.

p. 2
02

Whether the taxing master erred in capturing the amount already paid and whether her ruling should be reviewed

Holding

The issue was not determined because the reference was found incompetent.

Reasoning

The applicant alleged the Deputy Registrar erroneously recorded payments of Kshs. 200,000/- instead of Kshs. 343,350/- supported by receipts. However, having upheld the preliminary objection on jurisdictional/procedural competency grounds, the court held there was no logical basis to reach the merits of the alleged taxing errors.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A reference against a taxing officer's decision is incompetent where no notice of objection in writing was given to the taxing officer under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  • Where the reasons for taxation on disputed items are already contained in the ruling, there is no need to seek further reasons from the taxing officer.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 12th June 2023 is dismissed.
  2. 2.There shall be no orders as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11 (including 11(1) and (2)); Rule 10; Rule 11(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 10 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (as invoked by the applicant); reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Section 1A, 1B and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murunga & Associates Advocates v Chemutut (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 3841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons dated 12th June 2023 (Miscellaneous Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3841/eng@2024-05-15

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