Alfred Ochieng Opiyo t/a Ochieng Opiyo & Co Advocates v Hydro Pump and Services (Africa) Limited (Note: parties as styled in judgment - Applicant is the advocate, Respondent is the Client)
The bottom line
#When challenging a lawyer's fee assessment, your 14-day deadline starts only after you receive the full written reasons for the decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
The reference was filed within fourteen days of receipt of the typed Ruling and was therefore competent
The Respondent filed a Notice of objection on 29th November 2018 within fourteen days of the decision, then requested reasons which were only availed on 30th January 2019. Since Paragraph 11(2) allows fourteen days from receipt of reasons, and the court could not discern what happened at delivery because the Applicant filed no affidavit evidence, the application was held to be within time.
Whether the Taxing Master proceeded on correct principles in assessing instruction fees
The court found the Taxing Master erred in awarding Kshs 25,200/= on the basis that the suit was defended when the defendants never entered appearance
The court perused the documents and found that in CMCC No 8232 of 2013 the defendants did not enter appearance and judgment was requested on default. The instruction fee had been assessed on a defended-suit basis, which was a wrong principle. Rather than re-tax itself, the court remitted the Bill for fresh taxation before a different taxing master.
Legal principles established
#- An objector to a taxing officer's decision need not file a reference within fourteen days of the decision; the reference must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of the reasons for the decision
- There is no time limit within which the taxing master must forward the reasons for his taxation
Court orders
#- 1.The Client's Chamber Summons application dated 7th February 2019 and filed on 13th February 2019 is allowed in terms of Prayer No (1) therein
- 2.The Taxing Master's decision delivered on 15th November 2018 is set aside and/or vacated
- 3.The Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 2nd October 2017 and filed on 4th October 2017 is remitted for taxation before any Taxing Master in the High Court Milimani Law Courts Civil Division other than the Taxing Master who taxed the said Bill of Costs
- 4.The costs of the application will be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2009 and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alfred Ochieng Opiyo t/a Ochieng Opiyo & Co Advocates v Hydro Pump and Services (Africa) Limited (Note: parties as styled in judgment - Applicant is the advocate, Respondent is the Client)", Case Analysis (2020). Misc Application No 497 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/9338/eng@2020-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.