Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedReference filed 12 September 2024 (number not stated in judgment)· [2024] KEELRC 2573 (KLR)

Molonket v East Africa Portland Cement (Cause 198 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2573 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 October 2024
RSRadido Stephen
290 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance Reference by an advocate-claimant, Lucy Rimanto Molonket, dissatisfied with the taxation of her Bill of Costs on 19 August 2024, specifically the instructions fees and getting up fees awarded by the Taxing Officer. The Reference was filed on 12 September 2024; the Respondent opposed it by replying affidavit filed on 2 October 2024, and brief oral submissions were taken on 23 October 2024. The court recorded that it was not in dispute that the claimant had been awarded Kshs 15,165,782/-. Under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, fees are computed on a graduated basis at levels of Kshs 500,000/-, Kshs 750,000/-, Kshs 1,000,000/- and then 2% of the balance of the decretal sum. The court found that the Taxing Officer had simply arrived at Kshs 403,315/- without any explanation, even though 2% of the decretal sum is Kshs 303,315/-, and then computed getting up fees as one third of that figure, being Kshs 134,438/-. The court held that the Taxing Officer fell into an error of principle. Allowing the Reference on 24 October 2024, the court ordered that the parties appear before a different Taxing Officer for re-taxation of the instructions fees and getting up fees, with costs of the Reference in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxation of instructions fees and getting up fees was erroneous

Holding

Yes - the Taxing Officer erred in principle by arriving at Kshs 403,315/- without explanation, a figure inconsistent with 2% of the decretal sum under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Reasoning

The court noted that under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, fees are computed on a graduated basis at specified levels with 2% of the balance of the decretal sum. Two percent of the Kshs 15,165,782/- awarded would be Kshs 303,315/-, yet the Taxing Officer taxed Kshs 403,315/- with no explanation. The getting up fees were then computed as one third of that unexplained figure. The unexplained and incorrect computation amounted to an error of principle, justifying re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A Taxing Officer who arrives at a taxed sum without explanation falls into an error of principle warranting re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Reference is allowed
  2. 2.The parties to appear before a different Taxing Officer for re-taxing of the instructions fees and getting up fees
  3. 3.Costs of the Reference in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order

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, "Molonket v East Africa Portland Cement (Cause 198 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2573 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Reference filed 12 September 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2573/eng@2024-10-24

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