Universities Academic Staff Union v Kirinyaga University (Cause 2 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2448 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's ELRC slashed a Kshs. 3.7 million legal fee, ruling it was wrongly calculated from an alternative claim that was never the case's true value.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees on the alternative prayer of the claim
Yes - using the alternative compensation claim (Kshs. 101,890,536) instead of the primary prayers was an error of principle, rendering the award of Kshs. 3,686,169 wrongful.
The Amended Claim had a primary prayer (reinstatement on five-year contracts and salary for March 2018) and an alternative prayer (12 months' salary compensation plus general damages). The suit was dismissed on both. The taxing officer valued the subject matter from the alternative prayer. The court held the primary prayer governs where both are dismissed, so the taxation was based on wrong factors and must be set aside.
Whether the respondent's application for extension of time to object to Item 2 should be granted
The court did not determine it, as the referral of the whole bill for fresh taxation rendered the application moot.
Having found an error of principle on Item 1 and directed fresh taxation of the entire bill (except uncontested items) before a different taxing officer, Item 2 would be re-taxed in any event. The court therefore declined to consider the extension-of-time application, finding no need to address it.
Legal principles established
#- Where a claim contains primary and alternative prayers and both are dismissed, the value of the subject matter for taxation is assessed on the primary prayer, the alternative relief becoming relevant only if granted.
- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive.
Court orders
#- 1.The award of instruction fees of Kshs. 3,686,169 for Item 1 is set aside, having been made in consideration of wrong factors.
- 2.The Respondent's Bill of Costs dated 6th March 2023 is referred for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer other than Hon M. Lubia, excluding the uncontested items (items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58).
- 3.The fresh taxation shall take into account the court's directions on the value of the subject matter (primary rather than alternative prayers).
- 4.The Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 9th February 2024 was not considered, having become moot.
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court on reference against a taxing officer's ruling under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union v Kirinyaga University (Cause 2 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 2 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2448/eng@2024-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.