Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Tom Ojienda & Associates [2018] KEELRC 2397 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Value of subject matter for instruction fees
The taxing master erred by adopting Kshs.1,000,000 as the value of the subject matter when the claim, taken in the aggregate from the pleadings and the judgment, amounted to less than Kshs.500,000 and the judgment awarded Kshs.175,520.
The Court examined the pleadings in the underlying wrongful termination claim, noting the claimant's monthly salary of Kshs.30,752 and the reliefs sought, which if granted in aggregate would be less than Kshs.500,000. The Court found no basis for the taxing master's adoption of a Kshs.1,000,000 global figure and agreed that the instruction fees asessed were inflated beyond what was ideal.
Raising instruction fees by one half on an advocate-client bill
The Court noted the applicable position is provided under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, supporting the complaint that the one-half enhancement was inapplicable to an advocate-client bill.
The Applicant argued the taxing master erred in raising instruction fees by one half contrary to established taxation principles, since the bill was an advocate-client bill and not a party-and-party bill. The Court observed that Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides what the instruction fee shall be, implicitly supporting the challenge to the enhancement.
Arithmetical errors in the ruling
The Court found the complaint of arithmetical errors in the bill and ruling to be true, warranting that the bill be re-submitted for taxation before another taxing master.
The Applicant contended the ruling contained arithmetical errors making it equivocal, ambiguous and unenforceable. The Court expressly found this complaint to be true and, on that basis together with the errors on instruction fees, allowed the reference and directed re-taxation before a different taxing officer.
Legal principles established
#- Instruction fees in taxation should be based on the value of the subject matter as discerned from the pleadings and the judgment, not an arbitrary global figure
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The bill of costs is to be re-submitted for taxation before another taxing master
- 3.Costs in the cause
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Taxing Master)
- Nairobi ELRC Misc 52/2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 44 of the Advocates Act, paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2009 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Tom Ojienda & Associates [2018] KEELRC 2397 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Nairobi ELRC Misc 52/2017 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2397/eng@2018-02-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.