Hassan Jibril (suing on behalf of the applicant company) v [Respondent]
The bottom line
#Challenging court fees requires proving they are unreasonably high or the court made a clear error, and you must act quickly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxation should be set aside for error of principle
Dismissed - no prima facie evidence of error of principle or irrelevant factors; the claim that instruction fees were excessive was conjecture without valuation evidence.
The court applied the settled principles from R v Minister of Agriculture ex-parte Njuguna and Ukwala Supermarket: interference requires error of principle or manifestly excessive fees. The applicant produced no valuation to show the subject-matter value was misapprehended, so the complaint was made 'from the bar' without cogent evidence.
Whether extension of time to appeal against the Certificate of Costs should be granted
Refused - inordinate delay from 2018, no notice of appeal, and the delay was attributable to the applicant's own default and laches.
Applying Mutiso, Salat and Munya principles, the court found the delay unexplained: the record showed hearing notices were served, the applicant chose not to attend, and only resurfaced on execution. Shah v Mbogo: discretion is not designed to assist one who deliberately obstructs the course of justice.
Whether the ex-parte taxation breached natural justice
No breach - the applicant was accorded an opportunity to be heard through multiple hearing notices; natural justice is flexible and context-dependent.
Relying on Russell v Duke of Norfolk and Sedley J in R v Home Secretary ex-parte Mbon, the court held the requirement of natural justice depends on the circumstances. The many hearing notices dispatched showed the court's efforts; the applicant's voluntary absence did not invalidate the proceedings.
Whether the intended appeal had chances of success
Little merit - assessment of instruction fees is a discretionary balancing act not lightly disturbed on appeal.
Borrowing from KEMFRO Africa (mutatis mutandis) and Paul Ssemogerere, the court held there is no formula for calculating instruction fees; the taxing officer performs an intricate balancing act, and an appellate court will not substitute its own figure merely because it would have awarded differently.
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 is manifestly excessive; the normal remedy is remittal for reassessment.
- Extension of time is a wide unfettered discretion guided by length of and reasons for delay, prejudice, and chances of appeal succeeding.
- Court's discretion to set aside is not designed to assist a party who has deliberately obstructed or delayed the course of justice.
- An appeal against a Certificate of Costs under Schedule VII of the Advocates Remuneration Order must comply with Rule 11(1) by filing a reference within 14 days of taxation.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion seeking leave to file an appeal out of time, stay of execution and setting aside of the Certificate of Costs dated 26th November 2018 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Kilifi
- CMCC No. 38 of 2012 / Bill of Costs Misc. Application No. 9 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hassan Jibril (suing on behalf of the applicant company) v [Respondent]", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion (Civil Suit No. 38 of 2012, taxation-related reference), High Court Malindi. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.