Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons application dated May 12, 2022)· [2023] KEELRC 988 (KLR)

Murila v Langat & another (Cause 1153 of 2014) [2023] KEELRC 988 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 April 2023
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
2,054 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court extended a lawyer's deadline to challenge a drastically reduced costs award and sent the bill back for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference by way of chamber summons dated May 12, 2022 in which the applicant advocate, Dr Fred N. Ojiambo, sought enlargement of time to institute proceedings against the taxing master's rulings of January 26, 2022 and February 17, 2022, which taxed his party bill of costs dated August 16, 2021. The bill claimed Kshs 4,129,411.90 in instruction and getting up fees for professional services in Nairobi ELRC No. 1153 of 2014, but the taxing master awarded only Kshs 306,929/-. The applicant contended the taxing master failed to consider the interests of the parties, the importance and complexity of the matter, the conduct of proceedings and the four years the case was in court, and relied on authorities on taxation and extension of time. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was defective, time-barred and an abuse of process. The court found the taxing master did not explain how she arrived at the award, merely citing the Joreth decision, but held that since no specific amount had been claimed in the underlying suit the taxation was largely discretionary and had been exercised fairly, without wrong principles. On delay, the court found approximately eight days between receipt of the Deputy Registrar's response and filing was not unreasonable given public holidays, and granted enlargement of time. However, noting the enormous variance between the claim and the award, the court allowed the application, deemed the reference duly filed, and referred the bill to a different taxing master for re-taxation within 45 days. Costs were in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enlargement of time for filing the reference

Holding

The delay of about 8 days between the Deputy Registrar's letter of April 20, 2022 and filing on May 12, 2022 was not unreasonable given public holidays, and leave to enlarge time was granted.

Reasoning

The court considered the applicant's explanation: he requested reasons for the award, was told they were contained in the two rulings, and then filed the reference within about 8 days. Accounting for the gazetted holiday for the funeral of the retired president and Labour Day, the court found no undue delay and exercised its discretion to enlarge time and deem the reference duly filed.

p. 4
02

Whether the taxing master erred in principle

Holding

The court agreed the taxing master did not give reasons for the figure awarded, but held the taxation was largely discretionary as no specific amount had been claimed, so the discretion was exercised fairly; however, given the enormous variance, the bill was referred for re-taxation.

Reasoning

The taxing master's ruling merely referred to the Joreth case without explaining how the figure was reached. Yet because the claimant in the underlying ELRC suit claimed no specific amount, there were no figures to anchor the taxation. The court nonetheless found the variance between Kshs 4,129,411.90 claimed and Kshs 306,929 awarded so large that justice required re-consideration by a different taxing master.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A taxing officer's discretion must be exercised on transparent, reliable and just criteria, and the taxing officer should explain how the figure awarded was arrived at.
  • Whether or not to extend time is essentially discretionary, considering the length of and reason for the delay and the chances of the reference succeeding.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated May 12, 2022 is allowed
  2. 2.Time is enlarged and the reference is deemed duly filed
  3. 3.The matter is referred to a different taxing master to re-tax the applicant's bill of costs dated August 16, 2021 within 45 days from the date of the ruling
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (6)

  • Joreth Limited v Kiriano & Associates (also cited as Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates)
    [2002] EA 92
  • Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge
    [2013] eKLR
  • County Government of Tana River v Miller & Company Advocates
    [2021] eKLR
  • Republic v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others ex parte Muchiri W. Njuguna & 6 others
    [2006] eKLR
  • Kamu National Elections Board & 2 others v Selah Yakub Farah
    [2018] eKLR
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & another
    [1972] E.A
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time and review a taxing master's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order; court otherwise guided by Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution and Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murila v Langat & another (Cause 1153 of 2014) [2023] KEELRC 988 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons application dated May 12, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/988/eng@2023-04-20

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