Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Cause (Chamber Summons application dated 6th June 2023), arising from Mombasa ELRC Cause No. E067 of 2022· [2023] KEELRC 2841 (KLR)

Hakika Transport Services Limited v Isaac Onyango & Company Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2841 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 November 2023
896 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a company's challenge to legal fees because it filed no supporting documents, showing references without evidence go nowhere.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Hakika Transport Services Limited, filed a Chamber Summons dated 6th June 2023 as a taxation reference against the Taxing Officer's decision of 8th May 2023 in Mombasa ELRC Cause No. E067 of 2022 (Isaac Onyango & Company Advocates v Hakika Transport Services Limited). The Applicant objected to items 1 to 5 and the whole of the taxation decision on the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 28th September 2022, complaining that the Taxing Master wrongly applied part B of the Advocates Remuneration Order despite dismissal of the claim with no order as to costs, wrongly taxed instruction fees at Kshs. 90,000 without a judicial finding of complexity or public interest justifying the upper scale of Schedule 6(1)(a) of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014, wrongly found the bill drawn to scale, and arrived at an aggregate award of Kshs. 943,200 disproportionate to work done. The Applicant sought setting aside of the Ruling and an award as deemed just, or in the alternative remittal to another Taxing Officer. The Court, per Agnes Kitiku Nzei J, found the Bill of Costs, submissions and impugned Ruling were not annexed or on record, rendering the reference hollow and an abuse of process. It further found no prior objection to taxation under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 1962 had been filed, only a letter requesting typed proceedings. Applying the Court's earlier decision in Misc. Cause No. E029 of 2022 on the proper form of a Rule 11 reference, the Court held the application incompetent and dismissed it with costs on 9th November 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Duty to place before the Court the documents impugned in a taxation reference

Holding

A reference cannot be determined where the Bill of Costs, the proceedings before the Taxing Officer and the impugned decision are not annexed; the application is hollow and an abuse of process

Reasoning

The supporting affidavit deponed that the Applicant adopted the Bill of Costs, submissions and the Ruling dated 8th May 2023, but none of these documents were annexed or otherwise on record. The Court therefore had nothing to interrogate, and the reference amounted to asking the Court to decide on nothing.

p. 2
02

Compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 1962

Holding

An objector must first give notice of objection in writing to the Taxing Officer within fourteen days and, after receiving reasons, apply to a Judge by Chamber Summons; no such objection appeared on record

Reasoning

The only document shown was a letter dated 19th May 2023 requesting typed copies of the ruling and reasons to enable the advocates to advise their client. That letter was not a notice of objection under Rule 11, so the preconditions for a reference were not met.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A taxation reference to a judge under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 1962 in an advocate-client cause should be brought as a separate Miscellaneous Cause and must annex all documents filed before the Taxing Officer, certified copies of proceedings and any certificate of costs
  • A reference supported by no documents on record is an abuse of the Court's process and incompetent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 6th June 2023 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 1962Rule 11
  • Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014Schedule 6(1)(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • Isaac Onyango & Co. Advocates v Hakika Transport Services Limited
    [2023] eKLR
On appeal from
null
null
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 1962 (taxation reference to a Judge)

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 E023 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Cause (Chamber Summons application dated 6th June 2023), arising from Mombasa ELRC Cause No. E067 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2841/eng@2023-11-09

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