Judicial Service Commission v Njora (Miscellaneous Cause E134 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1423 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed the Judiciary's challenge to a Kshs 1.16 million advocate fee award, confirming judges rarely disturb a taxing officer's decision unless it errs on principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over a reference filed outside the 14-day period under Rule 11
The court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 11(4) to enlarge time, so the reference was properly before the court despite being filed 34 days outside the limitation period
The Respondent argued the reference was 34 days late without leave, divesting the court of jurisdiction per the Lillian S principle. The court however held that Rule 11(4) confers a discretion to enlarge time even after expiry of the enlarged period, and exercised that power, rendering the reference properly before the court. The preliminary objection was treated as part of the reply and did not defeat jurisdiction.
Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in assessing instruction fees
No improper exercise of discretion was discerned; the Taxing Master correctly applied Schedule 6 of the 2014 Advocates Remuneration Order and reasoned authority in reducing instruction fees from Kshs. 6,000,000/-
The Taxing Master appreciated the minimum fee of Kshs. 100,000/-, relied on Jerioth Limited v Kigano and Associates to rationalise the increase, and taxed off Kshs. 5,400,000/-. The court found the resulting total of Kshs. 1,164,117/- neither unreasonable nor usurious, satisfying the fairness principles in the Muchiri W'Njuguna case.
Effect of absence of notice of the taxation ruling
Service of notice of the taxation ruling was shown by the evidence, and in any event lack of notice would not vitiate the taxation because the same principles would guide the court
The Applicant claimed it was not informed of the date of the taxation ruling. Evidence from Mr. Jason Okemwa showed notice was served. The court held hypothetically that absence of service would not vitiate taxation, as the principles for appreciating the taxation would be identical.
Legal principles established
#- On a reference from taxation, a judge will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion unless the taxing officer erred in principle
- The court's power under Rule 11(4) to enlarge time applies notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged has already expired
- Failure to serve notice of the taxation ruling does not of itself vitiate a taxation
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is found to be without merit and accordingly dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - discretionary power to enlarge time for a reference to a judge
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Judicial Service Commission v Njora (Miscellaneous Cause E134 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1423 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 29th August 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1423/eng@2023-05-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.