Gerald Kanyago Muthakia v Dedan Kimathi University of Technology [2021] KEELRC 1331 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to increase a Kshs.200,000 instruction fee, ruling a simple unfair termination case dressed as a constitutional petition does not justify higher legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle by awarding a manifestly low instruction fee of Kshs.200,000.00
No error of principle; the instruction fee was properly fixed under Schedule 6A(1)(j)(ii) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 as the matter was an opposed but simple employment petition
The court applied the First American Bank principles: interference requires an error of principle or a manifestly high or low award. The applicant failed to demonstrate complexity or novelty that would take the matter beyond the minimum of Kshs.100,000.00 for opposed constitutional petitions. The matter was a simple termination dispute clothed as a constitutional petition, so the taxing master's discretion was properly exercised and the court declined to disturb the award.
Burden of justifying higher instruction fees
The party seeking higher costs must place before the taxing officer cogent evidence of complexity, responsibility, industry and time expended
Relying on Gathinga Mwangi & Company Advocates v Jane Mumbi Kiano, the court endorsed the principle that an applicant cannot merely file a bill of costs and expect the taxing officer to find supporting evidence on their own. The applicant's assertion of extensive research and importance of the petition did not discharge this burden.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing master's discretion on quantum of taxation will not be interfered with unless there is an error of principle or the sum awarded is manifestly excessive or low as to justify an inference of error or injustice
- The party seeking higher costs bears the duty of justifying them with cogent evidence of complexity, industry and time involved; it is not enough to file the bill of costs
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26th February 2021 is disallowed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against the decision of the Taxing Master on a party and party Bill of Costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gerald Kanyago Muthakia v Dedan Kimathi University of Technology [2021] KEELRC 1331 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Application dated 26th February 2021 (arising from ELRC 12/2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1331/eng@2021-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.