Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedChamber Summons dated 18th November 2024 (Reference from taxation in Milimani ELRC Cause No. E1027 of 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 1143 (KLR)

EE Otieno & Co Advocates v Singh (Miscellaneous Application E105 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1143 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 April 2025
SRStella Rutto
2,060 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a Kshs 4.3 million fee award against 42 clients, confirming it will not disturb a taxing officer's costs decision without proof of a clear legal error.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Stella Rutto J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered on 9th April 2025, determines a reference by way of Chamber Summons dated 18th November 2024 in which the Clients/Applicants sought to vacate and set aside in its entirety the ruling of the taxing officer, Hon. Aziza Ajwang, Deputy Registrar, delivered on 17th October 2024 taxing an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs at Kshs 4,303,376, or alternatively to have the matter referred for fresh taxation. The Applicants, who were among 42 claimants in Milimani ELRC Cause No. E1027 of 2023, alleged misdirection in taxing items 1, 2, 3 and 6 to 12, failure to consider their submissions, use of the wrong Rupee-to-Shilling conversion rate, wrongful allowance of Getting Up Fees despite no hearing, and failure to account for individual representation of 42 claimants. The Advocate/Respondent defended the taxation, noting Getting Up Fees had been struck off, while conceding an incorrect conversion rate. The court framed one issue: whether the taxing officer erred in law and principle. Applying the settled tests in First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Premchand Raichand, the court held that the taxed figures corresponded with the applicants' own submissions, Rule 62 was inapplicable because a unitary claim was filed, Getting Up Fees had been taxed off, and an advocate is entitled to fees once instructed. Finding no basis for interference, the court dismissed the Chamber Summons with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Test for interference with a taxing officer's decision

Holding

No basis for interference was discerned; the taxing officer's decision stood

Reasoning

The court applied the settled test from First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Premchand Raichand: interference lies only where the decision rests on an error of principle or the award is so high or low as to amount to an injustice. The applicants failed to demonstrate either, and key figures corresponded with their own submissions during taxation.

p. 4
02

Conversion rate applied to Indian Rupee claim

Holding

Complaint not made out; the value adopted matched the applicants' own submissions and no correct scale was indicated

Reasoning

The taxing officer's valuation was in consonance with the applicants' submissions during taxation, which they reiterated in the reference. Despite asserting the wrong conversion scale, they did not indicate the appropriate one, and the basic instruction fee matched their position.

p. 4
03

Rule 62 and individual representation of 42 claimants

Holding

Ground failed because a unitary claim was filed, not separate pleadings

Reasoning

Rule 62 applies where an advocate files separate pleadings for each of two or more clients, per Desai Sarvia & Pallan v Tausi Assurance. Here it was undisputed that the advocate filed a unitary claim for all applicants, so the ground did not hold.

p. 4
04

Getting Up Fees where matter did not proceed to hearing

Holding

Ground failed; the taxing officer had taxed off Getting Up Fees

Reasoning

A perusal of the impugned ruling showed the taxing officer taxed off Getting Up Fees precisely because the matter did not proceed for hearing, so the applicants' complaint was factually misconceived.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is so manifestly excessive as to justify an inference of an error of principle
  • An advocate is entitled to fees once instructed, retained or employed by a client
  • Rule 62 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order applies where an advocate instructed by two or more clients files separate pleadings for each client

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 18th November 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRule 62
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48

Cases cited (4)

  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others
    [2002] E.A.L.R 64 at 69
  • Premchand Raichand Limited & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Another
    [1972] E.A 162
  • Desai Sarvia & Pallan v Tausi Assurance
    [2017] KECA 456 (KLR)
  • Ratemo Oira & Co. Advocates vs. Magereza Sacco Society Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a taxing officer's decision on an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "EE Otieno & Co Advocates v Singh (Miscellaneous Application E105 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 18th November 2024 (Reference from taxation in Milimani ELRC Cause No. E1027 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1143/eng@2025-04-09

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