Amutavi v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 858 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2714 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court slashed inflated legal fees, confirming instruction fees must be pegged to the actual judgment amount unless a case is genuinely complex.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether failure to give notice in writing to the taxing officer under Rule 11(1) renders a reference incurably defective
Where the applicant is possessed of the material necessary to present the reference and files it within time, dismissing it for want of the notice would be undue reliance on technicalities contrary to Article 159
The Court held the notice requirement is for the benefit of the objector, to gather material for the reference, not the adversary. The alleged letter was not on record, but since the applicant filed the reference within time and possessed the material, striking out would be an undue technicality inconsistent with Article 159 of the Constitution.
Whether the taxing officer must supply reasons in a separate document after the ruling
No; where the taxation ruling is comprehensive and self-contained, no separate reasons are required
The Court adopted Odunga J's reasoning in Evans Thiga Gaturu: taxing officers often deliver comprehensive rulings containing their reasons, and demanding a separate reasons document would waste judicial time and militate against expeditious disposal. The Learned Taxing Officer here had spelt out her reasons in the typed ruling of 14th March 2023.
Whether the enhancement of instruction fees from KSHS. 189,347.21 to KSHS. 2,000,000 was justified
It was not; the matter was not complex and the discretion was not judiciously exercised, warranting interference
The value of the subject matter for taxation was the ascertainable judgment sum under Schedule 6 paragraph 1(b). The Taxing Officer had acknowledged this but inexplicably enhanced instruction fees without justification, the matter not having been certified complex. The Court therefore disturbed both the instruction fees and the correlated getting-up fee.
Legal principles established
#- Where the taxing officer delivers a comprehensive, self-contained ruling containing reasons, there is no need to furnish fresh reasons separately
- For party and party costs, the value of the subject matter is the ascertainable amount awarded in the judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The Taxing Master's taxation on item 1 of the Party and Party Bill of Costs is set aside and in place thereof the figure of KSHS. 189,347.21 allowed
- 2.The amount of KSHS. 700,000 taxed as getting-up fees is set aside and in place thereof KSHS. 63,115.74 allowed
- 3.Each Party is to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amutavi v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 858 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 2714 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2714/eng@2024-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.