Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNairobi MCELRCC No E1045 of 2022 (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 588 (KLR)

V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Essajee Amuee (EA) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 588 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
LNLinnet Ndolo
1,065 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court set aside a legal fee taxation because the client's filed objections were ignored, ordering fresh taxation before a different Taxing Master.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling determines the Client's reference by Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2024 against the Taxing Master's ruling of 17th July 2024, in which Hon D.O Mbeja taxed the Advocate's Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February 2024 at Kshs. 72,450, including instruction fees of Kshs. 45,000 per matter across several MCELRCC suits and a 50% enhancement. The Client complained that it was condemned unheard because its reply and revised Bill of Costs were not considered; that the Taxing Master ignored evidence of sums already paid (a total of Kshs. 760,000 across multiple matters); and that the Taxing Master erred in principle by adding 50% to an Advocate-Client Bill when the Party-to-Party costs in the parent case, still pending, had not been taxed, contrary to the Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates decision. The Advocate, Dr. Vincent Chokaa, opposed the reference, denying any fee agreement under Section 45 of the Advocates Act, denying proof of payment, and asserting that an Advocate may have their Bill taxed at any stage of civil proceedings. The court did not resolve the factual dispute over the Client's participation, but held that from the Taxing Master's own ruling the Client's input was evidently not taken into account. On that ground alone, and invoking the overarching right to be heard, the court set aside the taxation and remitted the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before another Taxing Master other than Hon D.O Mbeja. The reference therefore succeeded on the audi alteram partem ground, without any determination of the 50% enhancement issue. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Client was condemned unheard in the taxation

Holding

The court found that the Client's input was not taken into account and, on that ground alone, set aside the taxation and remitted the Bill for re-taxation before a different Taxing Master.

Reasoning

The parties gave divergent accounts: the Advocate claimed the Client never responded to the Bill, while the Client claimed its filed reply was ignored. The court did not resolve which account was true, holding that from the Taxing Master's own ruling it was evident the Client's input was not considered. Invoking the overarching right to be heard, that alone sufficed to warrant setting aside the taxation without deciding the other alleged errors.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to be heard is overarching; a taxation conducted without taking into account a party's filed response is liable to be set aside.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The taxation by the Taxing Master was set aside
  2. 2.The Bill of Costs was remitted for re-taxation before another Taxing Master, other than Hon D.O Mbeja

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates ActSection 45

Cases cited (1)

  • Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Master's ruling on an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs pursuant to the Advocates Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Essajee Amuee (EA) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E058 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 588 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi MCELRCC No E1045 of 2022 (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 31st July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/588/eng@2025-02-27

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