Gatu Magana Company Advocates LLP v Mwania (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court sent a disputed legal fees bill back for re-taxation because both sides skipped the required step of asking the taxing officer for reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural prerequisite under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Neither applicant complied with the procedural requirement of seeking the taxing officer's reasons for her decision before objecting, so the proper course was remission
The court examined Rule 11, noting that objections require notice of items and reasons from the taxing officer. Upon reviewing both applications and affidavits, the court found no indication the applicants wrote to the taxing officer on the items objected to. Without the reasons, the court could not properly assess the alleged errors of principle, leaving remission as the only recourse.
Interference with the taxing master's discretion
The second reference was too generalized, seeking an overhaul of the bill including items within the taxing master's discretion, which the court cannot disturb
The Advocate's reference attacked the entire taxation as manifestly low without particularising specific items. The court noted the parties did not seek the taxing master's reasons and that generalised complaints about discretionary assessments cannot found judicial interference on a reference.
VAT on instructions fees only
The respondent conceded, based on authority, that the taxing master erred in charging VAT on instructions fees only; VAT is chargeable on all professional fees except disbursements
The Client relied on Ngatia & Associates Advocates v Interactive Gaming & Lotteries Limited, which held VAT is a statutory charge on legal services rendered, payable to KRA, and not chargeable on disbursements. However, this issue fell within the remitted taxation rather than being finally determined by the court.
Legal principles established
#- Where an objector has not sought the reasons of the taxing officer for her findings, the recourse is to refer the bill back to the taxing officer for re-taxation or for issuance of reasons
- A judge on reference cannot interfere with matters falling within the taxing master's discretionary jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The Advocate-Client Bill of Costs is remitted back to the taxing mistress for further consideration
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) and Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatu Magana Company Advocates LLP v Mwania (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1946 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (two references: Chamber Summons dated 11th March 2024 and Chamber Summons dated 21st May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1946/eng@2024-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.