Ruto v Hotel Waterbuck Limited & another (Cause 86 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 914 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that legal costs can far exceed the amount won in a case, because fees are based on pleadings, not just the judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Basis of instruction fees in taxation
The taxing master rightly considered the subject matter from the pleadings and remuneration schedule; instruction fees need not be commensurate with the judgment amount alone.
The applicant argued that instruction fees should have been pegged to the Kshs 32,000 judgment. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision (Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates) that the value of the subject matter is determined from pleadings, judgment or settlement, and where not ascertainable, the taxing officer exercises discretion considering the nature and importance of the matter. The taxing master applied the remuneration schedule and the court found no error in principle.
Entitlement to file bill of costs after change of advocates
The advocate finally on record is entitled to file a single bill for the whole matter under Section 62A of the Advocates Act.
The applicant objected that the pleadings were drawn by Wachira Wanjira/Wekhomba firm and not Konosi. The court invoked Section 62A(1) and (2) of the Advocates Act, which provides that where there has been a change of advocates, the advocate finally on record shall draw a single bill for the whole matter. Since no other bill had been filed, Konosi advocates properly filed the bill.
Whether the court should interfere with the taxing master's decision
No reason was found to interfere; the taxation followed the remuneration schedule and applicable principles.
The court examined the averments and submissions, noting the taxing master considered instructions fees based on the remuneration schedule as explained in her ruling. The contention that costs of Kshs 209,560 against a Kshs 32,000 award demonstrated error in principle was rejected because the subject matter for taxation is not limited to the judgment amount. The reference was therefore dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- The value of the subject matter for taxation is determined from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the taxing officer uses discretion considering nature, importance, interests of parties and general conduct of proceedings
- Where there is a change of advocates, the advocate finally on record draws a single bill for the whole matter
Court orders
#- 1.The reference/application dated 4th August 2022 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the claimant/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(1-4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, with leave granted on 21st July 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruto v Hotel Waterbuck Limited & another (Cause 86 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 914 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/914/eng@2023-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.