Client v Advocate (Taxation Reference)
The bottom line
#If a Taxing Master fails to explain how they calculated your legal fees, the High Court can overturn the decision and send the bill back for re-assessment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Officer's ruling disclosed the method of assessment and reasons for the figures allowed
The Taxing Master erred in principle because the ruling was silent on how most items, including instruction fees, were assessed
The court examined the ruling and found it stated only the items drawn to scale but was silent on the rest, including item No. 1 on instruction fees. Without reasons, the court could not tell whether the nature of the matter, its conclusion, settlement or general conduct were considered, citing First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shah & others. Failure to reflect the method of assessment amounted to an error in principle.
Legal principles established
#- A Taxing Master errs in principle where the ruling fails to give reasons showing how the figures in the Bill were arrived at, making it impossible to tell what factors were taken into account
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling by the Taxing Officer delivered on 16th April, 2019 is set aside
- 2.The Bill of Costs dated 11th October, 2018 is referred for taxation before another Taxing Officer
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court over references from a Taxing Officer's decision on an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Client v Advocate (Taxation Reference)", Case Analysis (2020). Application dated 13th May, 2019. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.