Charles Muchemi Karweru t/a Karweru & Co. Advocates v Stephen Gachugi Muthoga & another [2018] KEELRC 1874 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled an advocate cannot charge a client twice for the same work, upholding a taxed fee award of party and party costs plus 50%.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in awarding party and party costs plus 50% instead of taxing the advocate-client bill as drawn
No error in principle; the Taxing Master's approach was correct and was upheld
The court perused both bills of costs and the Taxing Master's notes showing she taxed items with missing dates, taxed off amounts on various items, and noted the absence of election under Schedule V. Her ruling set out rival arguments and produced a reasoned award of instruction fees plus 50% plus 16% VAT. Applying the Premchand principles, the court found the award balanced access to justice against fair remuneration of advocates and found no basis for interference.
The principles governing interference with a Taxing Master's decision
The Premchand Raichand principles apply: courts interfere only where the award is so high or low as to amount to an injustice
The court adopted the five principles enunciated in Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd, as cited in Wambugu, Motended & Co. Advocates v Attorney General: costs should not confine access to justice to the wealthy, a successful litigant should be fairly reimbursed, remuneration should attract recruits to the profession, there should be consistency, and interference only in cases of injustice.
Whether an advocate barred from claiming the same fees twice when party and party costs were already paid in full
Yes; the respondents are not required to pay more than what was ordered by the Taxing Officer
The Respondents contended the decretal sum was paid in full inclusive of party and party costs which the applicant accepted in satisfaction of his fees, and that an advocate is barred from seeking costs for the same matter twice. The court, upholding the Taxing Master's reasoning on the 50% uplift, held the respondents were not required to pay more than the taxed amount.
Legal principles established
#- A party and party bill plus 50% as advocate-client costs prevents an advocate from benefiting twice for the same items, since the items in both bills are essentially the same
- 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 reference and application are dismissed with costs
- 2.The Taxing Master's Ruling of 6th October 2017 is upheld
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Muchemi Karweru t/a Karweru & Co. Advocates v Stephen Gachugi Muthoga & another [2018] KEELRC 1874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Chamber Summons dated 23rd October 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1874/eng@2018-05-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.