Grace Achieng Ogot v Sukari Co-op. Saving & Credit Society Ltd [2015] KEELRC 378 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court upheld a taxing officer's discretion to set advocate fees where the disputed claim's value could not be determined from the pleadings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the subject matter of the counter-claim was ascertainable for purposes of taxation
The subject matter was not specifically ascertainable; the counter-claim sought an undisclosed surcharge to be established by the court, and the counter-claim was dismissed in its entirety
Paragraph 10A of the counter-claim alleged a loss of Kshs.164,000,000 but prayed for surcharge only to the extent of blame under the Co-operatives Act. The Claimant denied any ascertainable loss. The extent of surcharge was to be assessed by the court, but no assessment was made because the counter-claim was wholly dismissed. The Taxing Officer was therefore entitled to exercise her discretion in assessing the instruction fee.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in rejecting the getting up fee under item 4
No error; getting up fee had been charged under item 1 and the claim and counter-claim were canvassed at the same hearing
The Taxing Officer held the issues in the claim and counter-claim were enjoined and heard together, so no separate award was made under the getting up fee title. The court found she properly directed herself in rejecting the getting up fees.
Whether the Taxing Officer failed to decide items in the bill or taxed off conceded items
The grounds were not factually true; the ruling of 26th August 2014 determined all items and the Respondent objected to item 3 without any concession
A perusal of the Taxing Officer's ruling showed determinations on all the items cited in the applicant's grounds. The allegation of a concession by the Respondent on item 3 was contradicted by the Respondent's submissions and the ruling itself, as the Respondent had objected to item 3 and conceded no amount.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer may use discretion to assess a just instruction fee
- The court will only interfere with a taxing officer's award when it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 17th September, 2014 is dismissed
- 2.The Applicant to pay costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Achieng Ogot v Sukari Co-op. Saving & Credit Society Ltd [2015] KEELRC 378 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Chamber Summons dated 17th September, 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/378/eng@2015-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.