Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Civil Application No E088 of 2021· [2023] KEELRC 883 (KLR)

Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E088 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 883 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 April 2023
RSRadido Stephen
887 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

#

The Employment Court dismissed the hotel's challenge to an advocate's taxed legal fees because it broke a court condition and never specified what the Taxing Officer got wrong.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The advocate, Bruce Odeny & Co Advocates, had an advocate/client bill of costs against Scottish Tartan Hotels Ltd and William Roman McTough taxed on August 30, 2022 at Kshs 126,630.70, with a Certificate of Taxation issued on September 5, 2022. The advocate moved to convert the certificate into a judgment of the Court, an application allowed unopposed on January 23, 2023. The Respondents filed a Motion on September 20, 2022 seeking a stay of execution, leave to lodge their reference out of time, setting aside or variation of the taxation ruling, and re-taxation of the bill before another Taxing Officer. The Court granted an interim stay conditional on deposit of the taxed costs by September 23, 2022, which condition the Respondents did not satisfy. The parties subsequently recorded a consent before the High Court around October 18, 2022 compromising all fees in exchange for a global payment of Kshs 5,000,000 within 90 days, but no evidence of that payment was placed before the Court. On the merits, the Respondents alleged the Taxing Officer exceeded the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order guidelines and misapplied the law, but did not specify the guidelines or the law concerned, and did not demonstrate that the advocate had not rendered the itemised services, on which they had been heard during taxation. Dismissing the Motion with costs on April 19, 2023, the Court declined to confirm or extend the interim stay and held that a party challenging a taxation ruling must identify the specific guidelines or principles allegedly misapplied.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interim stay should be confirmed or extended

Holding

The stay was refused because the Respondents neither complied with the deposit condition nor proved payment under the consent compromising the fees

Reasoning

The Court had granted an interim stay conditional on the taxed costs being deposited by September 23, 2022, which the Respondents did not do. The parties had also recorded a consent before the High Court on or around October 18, 2022, compromising all fees, with a rider that the Respondents pay a global sum of Kshs 5,000,000 within 90 days. The Respondents produced no evidence of that payment, so the Court declined to confirm or extend the stay.

p. 2
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in taxing the advocate/client bill of costs

Holding

The Reference failed; the Respondents did not identify the guidelines or law allegedly breached, and the advocate itemised the services rendered, on which the Respondents were heard during taxation

Reasoning

The Respondents asserted the Taxing Officer exceeded the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order guidelines and misapplied the law, but never disclosed the particular guidelines or the details of the law concerned. On services, the Bill of Costs set out each item of service and the Respondents had the opportunity to respond and submit on each item during taxation, so no misdirection was demonstrated.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking to impugn a taxation ruling must identify the specific guidelines or law the Taxing Officer allegedly failed to apply; generalised assertions will not suffice
  • Non-compliance with a condition attached to an interim stay disentitles the party from confirmation or extension of the stay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court declines to confirm or extend the interim stay of execution
  2. 2.The Respondents' Motion filed September 20, 2022 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Orderguidelines on taxation
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction over advocate/client taxation and references against a Taxing Officer's ruling (Advocates Act and Advocates Remuneration Order framework)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E088 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 883 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Civil Application No E088 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/883/eng@2023-04-19

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