Abraham Mukunya v Mega Spin Limited [2015] KEELRC 1374 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a Kshs 190,929 legal bill because the taxing officer rubber-stamped it without checking whether the charges were genuine.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxation of the Bill of Costs was properly conducted
The taxation was set aside because the Taxing Officer allowed the Bill as drawn without verifying attendances or supporting disbursements and without applying the correct principles
The Taxing Officer allowed the Bill of Kshs 190,929 as drawn without detailed reasons. Examples showed items charged for attendances that did not occur or were merely registry attendances, service charges inconsistent with distance-based rates, and unsupported disbursements for photocopies and sundries. The Court held the Taxing Officer was in grave error, misapprehended taxation principles, and doubted whether he exercised his discretion at all, so the taxation could not stand.
Whether the Bill should be reassessed by the Judge or remitted
The Bill was remitted to a different Taxing Officer for taxation afresh
Following authority, on finding an error of principle the general practice is to remit quantum to the taxing officer, though the Judge may reassess himself where justice requires. The Court elected remittal to a different Taxing Officer as the appropriate course in the circumstances of the case.
Legal principles established
#- Where a Judge on a reference finds the taxing officer erred in principle, the general practice is to remit quantum to the taxing officer, though the Judge retains discretion to deal with the matter himself
- A Taxing Officer must consider the applicable factors and principles and exercise discretion before allowing a Bill of Costs; a taxation allowed as drawn without verification cannot stand
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer allowing the Bill of Costs as drawn is set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs to be placed before a different Taxing Officer for taxation afresh
- 3.The application dated 11 December 2014 is allowed
- 4.Costs of the application granted to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abraham Mukunya v Mega Spin Limited [2015] KEELRC 1374 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Nairobi Miscellaneous Application (as stated in judgment); motion dated 11 December 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1374/eng@2015-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.