Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedChamber Summons dated February 28, 2023 (Miscellaneous Application)· [2023] KEELRC 1387 (KLR)

Uzuri Foods Limited v Maina (Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1387 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 May 2023
JRJames Rika
690 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to reduce an advocate's taxed costs, ruling that a fresh taxation after a set-aside can lawfully exceed the original figure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Nakuru Athletic Club, moved the Court by Chamber Summons dated February 28, 2023 seeking leave, a stay of execution of the Taxing Officer's Ruling of February 21, 2023, and a review or setting aside of the decision certifying the Respondent's costs at Kshs 203,075. Judgment had been entered for the Respondent on May 5, 2022 for Kshs 198,578 with costs and interest. A first taxation produced Kshs 177,650, but that decision was set aside on November 24, 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. E150 of 2022 on the Applicant's own reference, because the Taxing Master had not given reasons. On second taxation the Bill was allowed at Kshs 203,075. The Applicant contended the enhanced sum was excessive, unexplained, and in breach of natural justice, urging the Court to interfere with the second taxation. The Respondent maintained that reasons were given for each item and that no specific item was challenged. The Court found that the second taxation was de novo; having itself procured the setting aside of the first taxation, the Applicant could not complain that the fresh taxation exceeded the earlier figure. The Taxing Officer gave specific reasons on each taxed item, none of which were faulted, and the Applicant identified no item taxed contrary to the Advocates Remuneration [Amendment] Order 2014. No error in principle or manifest excess amounting to injustice was shown. The reference was declined with costs to the Respondent, the Court observing that there must be an end to litigation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the second taxation was open to the Taxing Master to exceed the first taxed sum

Holding

Yes - the second taxation was de novo and not constrained by the earlier figure

Reasoning

The initial taxation of Kshs 177,650 was set aside at the Applicant's own instance because the Taxing Master had not given reasons. The defect was corrected in the second taxation, which gave specific reasons on each taxed item. The Applicant did not fault any item or reason, only the higher figure, which was a misconceived premise.

p. 2
02

Whether the Applicant demonstrated grounds for the Court to interfere with the taxation

Holding

No - no error in principle or manifest excess was shown

Reasoning

The Applicant did not identify any item taxed contrary to the Advocates Remuneration [Amendment] Order 2014 nor fault the reasons given for each item. Mere dissatisfaction with the higher amount, without demonstrating error in principle or injustice, does not warrant the Court's interference. Litigation must also come to an end.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court shall not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision unless an error in principle is demonstrated or the quantum is manifestly excessive or too low amounting to an injustice
  • Where an initial taxation is set aside, taxation afresh is taxation de novo and the Taxing Master is not bound to tax at an amount less than or equivalent to the earlier figure

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is declined
  2. 2.Costs of the reference to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration [Amendment] OrderSchedule 6 [b]
  • Electronic Case Management Practice Directions, 2020Practice Direction No. 6[2]
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order; leave granted through Chamber Summons

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Uzuri Foods Limited v Maina (Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Chamber Summons dated February 28, 2023 (Miscellaneous Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1387/eng@2023-05-31

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