Applicant (Advocate) v Respondent (Client) - Application to set aside taxation in High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 54 of 2014
The bottom line
#If a bill of costs appears unreasonably high, the court can set it aside and order a fresh assessment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the taxation award in HCCC Misc. Civil Application 54 of 2014 should be set aside
The application was allowed; the taxation and certificate of taxation were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation because the amount awarded appeared manifestly excessive and the advocate-client relationship and value of subject matter required establishment.
The court applied the First American Bank of Kenya v Shah principles: interference is warranted only on error of principle or manifestly excessive awards. The respondent challenged the absence of a valuation report for the subject property and alleged an agreed fee of Kshs 750,000/-. The court found the amount awarded appeared manifestly excessive and that the advocate-client relationship and subject-matter value needed to be established, justifying remittal for fresh taxation rather than outright interference with the quantum.
Whether the reference application was filed within time despite the missing court file
The court exercised its discretion under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to treat the application as filed within time, given the file went missing and the respondent filed within a month of becoming aware of the taxation.
The respondent became aware of the taxation on 15.5.2015, could not trace the file at the registry, and filed on 17.6.2015. The court noted the application was filed before the respondent obtained the reasons for the decision, which were unavailable because the file went missing, and suo motu enlarged time under Paragraph 11(4).
Legal principles established
#- A court may only interfere with a taxing officer's decision where it is based on an error of principle or the fee awarded is manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle.
- Where errors of principle are disclosed, the normal practice is to remit the taxation back to the taxing officer for reassessment.
Court orders
#- 1.The taxation conducted in High Court Misc. Civil Application number 54 of 2014 on the 27.4.2015 and the subsequent certificate of taxation are set aside
- 2.The matter is remitted back to the taxing master for fresh taxation
- 3.This file be consolidated with the original file High Court Misc. App. No.54 of 2014
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Applicant (Advocate) v Respondent (Client) - Application to set aside taxation in High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 54 of 2014", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 15th June 2015, arising from High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 54 of 2014). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.