Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELRC 61 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2020] KEELRC 61 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 September 2020
2,376 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court will only disturb a taxing officer's fee assessment for an error of principle or a plainly excessive or low award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference under Rule 11(1) and 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order arising from a party and party bill of costs taxed in a concluded employment matter in which the Claimant's case had been dismissed and the Respondent was awarded Kshs. 773,665/-. The Applicant sought enlargement of time to lodge an objection to the taxing officer's ruling of 14th February 2020, citing delay caused by the Government's Covid-19 directive of 15th March 2020. The Respondent opposed, contending that the Claimant had identified no error of principle in the taxing master's assessment of instruction fees (Kshs. 500,000/-) and getting up fees (Kshs. 170,000/-). The Claimant argued the matter was a simple recognition issue requiring only clerical effort, that the taxing officer failed to set out the basic fee before increasing it, and that duplicated items were awarded. The court set out the settled principles for interference with a taxing officer's decision, drawing on Peter Muthoka v Ochieng and First American Bank v Shah, including that interference requires an error of principle or a manifestly excessive or low award. It found no error of principle or manifest excess in the instruction and getting up fees, but accepted that the bill contained items that ought not to have been included. The application was found partly successful: the bill was remitted for taxation by a taxing officer other than Hon. Ruth Kefa, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the reference.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxing officer's assessment of instruction fees and getting up fees was vitiated by error of principle

Holding

No error of principle or manifest excess was established in respect of the instruction and getting up fees; only the inclusion of items that ought not to have been in the bill justified limited interference

Reasoning

The court applied the settled principles from Peter Muthoka and First American Bank v Shah. It found the taxing officer's discretion on instruction fees was wide and there was no evidence of reliance on irrelevant factors or omission of relevant ones. However, items were seemingly repeated in the bill and the Claimant showed such items ought not to have been included, warranting remission to a different taxing officer.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only on an error of principle or where the fee awarded is manifestly excessive or manifestly low as to justify an inference of error of principle
  • The taxing officer must set out the basic fee before venturing to increase or reduce it
  • Questions solely of quantum of costs are for the taxing officer, whose discretion is not to be casually interfered with

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time for filing the notice of objection enlarged and the notice of objection dated 19th June 2020 deemed duly filed
  2. 2.The bill of costs remitted to taxation by a Taxing Officer other than Hon. Ruth Kefa
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the reference

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(1), 11(4)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) OrderNot specified

Cases cited (5)

  • Peter Muthoka & Another v Ochieng & 3 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Sammy Some Kosgei v Grace Jelel Boit
    [2014] eKLR
  • KTK Advocates v Baringo County Government
    [2017] eKLR
  • Bank of Uganda vs. Banco Arabe Espanol
    SC Civil Application No. 23 of 1999
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others
    [2002] 1 EA 64
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(1) and 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2020] KEELRC 61 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/61/eng@2020-09-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.