Hakika Transport Services Limited v Isaac Onyango & Company Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2343 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a challenge to a legal fees decision because the company failed to attach the taxing officer's ruling and reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural adequacy of a rule 11 reference
The reference was fatally defective for failure to attach the taxing master's ruling and reasons, and for failure to link the decision in Mombasa Misc. ELRC No. E066 of 2022 to the application.
Rule 11(2) requires the taxing officer to record and forward reasons, and the objector's application to a judge must be based on those reasons. The court held that a proper reference must give the background of the matter and the ruling of the taxing master. Since neither the Bill of Costs nor the ruling dated 8 May 2023 was attached, the court could not assess the alleged errors in principle, and the application was left bare and premature.
Alleged errors in principle in the taxation
The merits of the taxation objections were not reached because the application was struck out for procedural inadequacy.
The applicant argued that instruction fees should have been based on the sum awarded and that items on the bill were excessive. However, the court declined to go through the taxed items because doing so without the taxing master's ruling would be premature and without context. The substantive complaints on instruction fees, perusals, drawings, copies, attendance and service charges were therefore never determined.
Legal principles established
#- A reference under rule 11 must be founded on the taxing officer's decision and the reasons recorded and furnished under rule 11(2); without them the application is premature and without context.
- An applicant seeking to set aside a taxation must place before the court the underlying bill of costs and ruling; failure renders the application bare.
Court orders
#- 1.The instant application is struck out
- 2.The respondent is awarded Kshs. 15,000 all-inclusive in costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hakika Transport Services Limited v Isaac Onyango & Company Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2343 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Mombasa Misc. Civil Application (ELRC) - Reference under rule 11 Advocates Remuneration Order, application dated 6 June 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2343/eng@2023-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.