Job Nyasimi Momanyi t/a Nchogu, Omwanza & Nyasimi Advocates v Kenyatta National Hospital (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted enforcement of a Kshs. 358 million legal fees bill, finding it wildly out of step with an earlier Kshs. 24 million taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the second taxation produced a manifestly excessive award warranting ex parte stay
Yes. The gap between the first taxation (Kshs. 24,436,357) and the second (Kshs. 358,491,673), and the absence of any items taxed off, persuaded the court that a stay was merited pending the second reference.
The court compared the two taxation outcomes and found a vast disparity supporting the Client's contention that the fresh award was inordinately high and grossly inflated. It found it difficult to see how the second taxation resulted in no items being taxed off, and concluded that an ex parte stay was merited to preserve the position until the reference is heard.
Whether the error apparent on the face of the record should be corrected by consent rather than contested litigation
The court expressed the view that the parties' advocates should concur in correcting the error instead of engaging in another prolonged round of legal argument on the Bill of Costs.
The court prioritised expeditious resolution, directing the Advocates to engage at their own level and strike a compromise on the reference, rather than subjecting the parties to a fresh full contest over the Bill of Costs in the second reference.
Legal principles established
#- A wide discrepancy between successive taxations supports a finding that the later taxation is manifestly excessive and justifies a stay of execution pending reference.
- An error apparent on the face of a taxation record is preferably corrected with the concurrence of the parties' advocates rather than through renewed litigation.
Court orders
#- 1.Execution of the Ruling delivered by Taxing Master dated 22nd January 2024, and all consequential orders, is stayed
- 2.The Application shall be served upon the Advocate
- 3.The Advocate to file and serve his Response, within 14 days of service
- 4.The Advocates to engage at their own level, and strike a compromise on the reference
- 5.Mention on 14th March 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs by the Deputy Registrar/Taxing Master; reference challenging a Taxing Master's Ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Job Nyasimi Momanyi t/a Nchogu, Omwanza & Nyasimi Advocates v Kenyatta National Hospital (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 20th February 2024 in a Reference (arising from ELRC Cause No. 31 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/316/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.