AI-generated case brief

Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke

ELRCAllowedChamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 (arising from Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Essajee Amuee (EA) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

27 February 2025

LNLinnet Ndolo

1,325 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court set aside a lawyer's fee taxation because the client's filed objections were ignored, ordering the bill be re-taxed by a different Taxing Master.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Client, Essajee Amijee (E.A) Ltd, filed a reference by Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 seeking to set aside a taxation ruling delivered by Hon D.O Mbeja, Taxing Master, on 17th July 2024, in respect of an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February 2024 raised by the Advocate, Ignatius Simiyu Wafula. The Bill had been taxed at Kshs. 72,450. The Client complained that although it had filed a Notice of Objection and a replying affidavit in opposition to the Bill, together with evidence of payments totalling Kshs. 760,000 across the subject matter and twelve related employment claims, the Taxing Master erroneously concluded that the Bill was undefended and condemned the Client unheard, contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution. The Client further contended that the Taxing Master erred in principle by increasing the taxed costs by 50% when no Party-to-Party costs had been taxed, the parent case being unconcluded, and by pegging the value of the case on the pleadings. The Advocate opposed the reference, denying any agreement on fees under Section 45 of the Advocates Act, asserting the absence of evidence of payment, and maintaining that an Advocate may file a Bill at any stage of proceedings. The Court found that, whatever the true position on the Client's participation, the Taxing Master's ruling showed the Client's input was not considered. On that ground alone, and guided by the overarching right to be heard, the Court set aside the taxation and remitted the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before a Taxing Master other than Hon D.O Mbeja.

Key legal issues

Whether the Client was heard during taxation

Holding

The Taxing Master failed to take the Client's input into account, violating the right to be heard under Article 50, warranting setting aside of the taxation.

Reasoning

The parties gave divergent accounts of the Client's participation: the Advocate accused the Client of failing to respond, while the Client said its reply was on record but ignored. The Court did not resolve the factual dispute but found from the Taxing Master's ruling that the Client's input was not considered. On that ground alone, guided by the right to be heard, the taxation was set aside.

p. 4

Re-taxation before a different Taxing Master

Holding

The Bill of Costs was remitted for re-taxation before a Taxing Master other than Hon D.O Mbeja.

Reasoning

Having found a breach of natural justice, the Court opted for re-taxation rather than re-doing the taxation itself, and directed that the re-taxation be conducted by a different Taxing Master to avoid any perception of bias or deference to the earlier erroneous ruling.

p. 4

Legal principles established

The right to be heard is overarching; a taxation ruling that disregards a party's filed response cannot stand.

Court orders

1.Set aside the taxation by the Taxing Master (ruling delivered 17th July 2024)
2.Remit the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before another Taxing Master, other than Hon D.O Mbeja

Authorities

Legislation

Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
Advocates ActSection 45

Cases cited (1)

Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates
[2019] eKLR

Jurisdiction invoked: Inherent supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs by way of reference from the Taxing Master's ruling

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Essajee Amuee (EA) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 (arising from Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/590/eng@2025-02-27

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