Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedChamber Summons dated 06.09.2024· [2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)

Namai v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Petition E039 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2024
BOByram Ongaya
512 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner applicant, who had obtained judgment on 22 June 2023 in the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= with costs of the suit, filed a chamber summons dated 6 September 2024 by way of reference seeking review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's ruling of 26 August 2024, by which the Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 19 April 2024 was taxed at Kshs. 382,385/=. The applicant, through M/S J.A. Guserwa & Company Advocates, contended that the award was very low and not in accord with the scale in the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 1962. Three grounds were advanced: that the Taxing Officer did not explain the basis for taxing instruction fees at Kshs. 200,000/=; that he failed to apply the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= in calculating instruction fees, thereby falling into error; and that he disregarded the scale providing instruction fees of Kshs. 505,000/= and getting up fees of Kshs. 168,333.33/=. The applicant also averred that a letter of 26 August 2024 seeking reasons for the low award had gone unanswered. The respondent filed no response, and the application was wholly unopposed. Considering the material on record, the court allowed the reference, set aside the Taxing Officer's decision of 26 August 2024 certifying costs at Kshs. 382,385/=, ordered that the bill be re-taxed taking into account due submissions and applicable law as to taxation, and directed the respondent to pay the costs of the application. Judgment was signed, dated and delivered at Nairobi on 18 October 2024 by Byram Ongaya, Principal Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in the quantum of instruction fees awarded

Holding

The Taxing Officer's decision was set aside and the bill ordered for re-taxation

Reasoning

The applicant contended that the Taxing Officer failed to apply the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= in calculating instruction fees, contrary to the scale in the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 1962, which provides instruction fees of Kshs. 505,000/= and getting up fees of Kshs. 168,333.33/=. The Taxing Officer did not explain the basis for taxing instruction fees at Kshs. 200,000/=. The application was unopposed, and the court found it in the interests of justice that the decision be set aside and the bill re-taxed with due submissions and applicable law.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A Taxing Officer's decision failing to apply the applicable remuneration scale to the decretal amount is in error and liable to be set aside on reference

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The decision of the Taxing Officer delivered on 26th August 2024 certifying costs at Kshs. 382,385/= is set aside
  2. 2.The bill be re-taxed taking into account due submissions and applicable law as to taxation
  3. 3.Respondent to pay costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of costs by the Taxing Officer (review of a taxing master's decision by the judge)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Namai v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Petition E039 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons dated 06.09.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2528/eng@2024-10-18

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