Kiplagat v Chelimo & 6 others (Miscellaneous Reference Application E060 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Eldoret dismissed a challenge to a KShs.387,894 costs award because the applicant failed to prove the Taxing Master made any error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in assessing instruction fees at KShs.100,000/-
No error established. Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the Taxing Master has discretion to assess a just fee; the reasons issued, relying on Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates factors, were self-explanatory, clear and sound.
Instruction fees are based on the value of the subject matter determined from pleadings, judgment or settlement. Where not ascertainable, the Taxing Master may exercise discretion applying the Joreth factors: nature and importance of the matter, interests of the parties, general conduct of proceedings and other relevant circumstances. The Taxing Master expressly relied on Joreth. The Applicant did not show the value was ascertainable nor any error of principle, so the award stands.
Whether the Taxing Master made errors of principle in taxing the party/party bill of costs, including in applying both the 2009 and 2014 Remuneration Orders
No error demonstrated. The court could not verify the alleged error because the Applicant failed to annex a copy of the bill of costs, and the court was constrained to accept the Taxing Master's decision as he had all the material before him.
The letter of objection covered the taxation in its entirety, so all items were under review. The Taxing Master applied both the 2009 and 2014 Remuneration Orders, items 1-6 under the former and the rest under the latter, following Odera Obar. However, the Applicant did not annex the bill of costs, denying the court the ability to confirm whether items were drawn to scale or taxed under the correct order. Without this, no justification for interference was shown.
Legal principles established
#- A judge on a reference from taxation will not normally interfere with the Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing the costs
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is to be determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion to assess a just instruction fee taking into account the nature and importance of the matter, the interests of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings and all other relevant circumstances
- Failure by a party challenging a taxation decision to avail the impugned bill of costs denies the court the opportunity to verify whether an error in principle occurred and is self-defeating
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference is dismissed
- 2.The Applicant to pay the costs of the Reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order (Chamber Summons)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiplagat v Chelimo & 6 others (Miscellaneous Reference Application E060 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons Application dated 17th November, 2022 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6256/eng@2024-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.