Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELRC 1898 (KLR)

Joseph Mumali Wanga v Blessed TC World Class Spares Limited [2021] KEELRC 1898 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 April 2021
JRJames Rika
881 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that small employment claims must be taxed on the lower Subordinate Court fee scale, not the High Court scale, cutting inflated legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Judgment had been entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 48,333.30 on 15th December 2018, with costs. The Claimant's Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 165,266 - more than three times the principal sum - and a Certificate of Taxation issued on 11th December 2019. The Respondent applied by notice dated 9th June 2020 seeking review and setting aside of the Taxing Officer's decision, explaining that its Advocate had attended the wrong court on the taxation date owing to a misread cause list, and that although submissions had been lodged, the Ruling recorded that the Respondent had not participated. The Respondent argued the taxing award was excessive and that the Taxing Officer wrongly applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (the High Court scale) instead of Schedule 7, which governs Subordinate Courts, contrary to Rule 58. The Claimant, through the affidavit of its Advocate Upendo Ignacious Allan, gave contradictory positions - stating in one paragraph the Bill was taxed under Schedule 7 and in another that Schedule 6 applied - and contended that the E&LRC is not a Subordinate Court and that the application was out of time under paragraph 11. The Court held that judgment value ordinarily determines instruction fees, that Rule 58 mandated the Subordinate Courts scale irrespective of the superior status of the E&LRC, and that costs three times the principal sum were distorted. Finding the application properly before it (leave having been granted on 27th May 2020), the Court allowed the application, set aside the taxing decision, and ordered taxation afresh before both parties under Schedule 7, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicable schedule for taxation where the judgment value falls within Subordinate Court jurisdiction

Holding

Rule 58 of the Advocates Remuneration Order should have applied and taxation ought to have been under Schedule 7, not Schedule 6

Reasoning

The judgment value of Kshs. 48,333.30 was within the jurisdiction of a Resident Magistrate's Court. Rule 58 mandates the Subordinate Courts scale in such cases unless the Judge otherwise orders. The Taxing Officer's application of Schedule 6 (High Court scale) produced costs of more than three times the principal sum, an obviously distorted outcome. The issue was not whether the E&LRC is a superior or subordinate court.

p. 2
02

Whether the application was time-barred under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The application was properly before the Court because the Respondent obtained leave of the Trial Judge to file out of time

Reasoning

The Claimant argued that the Respondent did not file a reference within 14 days as required by paragraph 11. The Respondent showed that the Trial Judge on 27th May 2020 granted leave to file the application within 14 days of the order, and the Respondent complied. The Court was therefore satisfied the application was properly before it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a matter could have been filed in a Subordinate Court having regard to the amount recovered, party and party costs are taxed on the Subordinate Courts scale unless the Judge otherwise orders, regardless of whether the judgment originated in the High Court or a superior specialist court.
  • The amount awarded in the judgment ordinarily determines the allowable instruction fees on taxation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application filed by the Respondent dated 9th June is allowed
  2. 2.The decision of the Taxing Officer is reviewed and set aside
  3. 3.Taxation shall be conducted afresh, in the presence of both Parties, and under the correct Schedule 7 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 6
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSchedule 7
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 58
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to review the decision of the Taxing Officer; Advocates Remuneration Order (Rule 58 and paragraph 11)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Mumali Wanga v Blessed TC World Class Spares Limited [2021] KEELRC 1898 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1898/eng@2021-04-09

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