Banking Insurance & Finance Union (K) v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2016] KEELRC 1498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court confirmed that taxing officers cannot dismiss a bill of costs for non-attendance — they can only proceed ex parte, adjourn, or order fee forfeiture.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a taxing officer may dismiss a bill of costs for non-attendance
No. Rules 14 and 76 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order exhaustively prescribe the consequences of non-attendance; dismissal of a bill of costs is not among them, so the Deputy Registrar acted without legal basis.
The court relied on Macharia & Co Advocates v Magugu for the proposition that the Advocates Remuneration Order is a complete code, excluding the Civil Procedure Rules. Rules 14 and 76 permit only proceeding ex parte, forfeiture of fees, or adjournment. Following Masore Nyanga'u & Co Advocates v Ombima, the taxing master lacks power to dismiss a bill. The dismissal was therefore set aside ex debito justitiae.
Whether the Respondent's preliminary objection on the advocate coming on record after judgment could be determined
No. The objection was not heard and determined below, so it is not properly before the court; the Deputy Registrar may deal with it if the bill is reinstated.
The court held that the preliminary objection raised before the Deputy Registrar was never heard and determined, and thus the question was not properly before the court. The matter remains within the Deputy Registrar's competence should the bill be reinstated.
Legal principles established
#- The Advocates Remuneration Order is a complete code and there is no provision for the invocation of the Civil Procedure Rules
- A taxing officer lacks jurisdiction to dismiss a bill of costs; the only options on non-attendance are to proceed ex parte, order forfeiture of fees, or adjourn
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and order of the Hon. Deputy Registrar of 12th August 2015 dismissing the Claimant's party & party Bill of Costs dated 23rd July 2015 is set aside ex debito justitiae
- 2.If the Bill of Costs is reinstated, the Hon. Deputy Registrar will be seized of the matter
- 3.The Respondent's preliminary objection to the Bill of Costs was not properly before the court and was not determined
- On appeal from
- Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer), High Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against the taxing officer's ruling under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Banking Insurance & Finance Union (K) v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2016] KEELRC 1498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (Not ). Cause No 2113 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1498/eng@2016-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.