Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v Chemelil Sugar Company Limited

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 238 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION OF ADVOCATE – CLIENT BILL OF COSTS BETWEEN OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES ….............................. APPLICANT AND KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. …................................ RESPONDENT Arising From Nyando SRMCC NO. 181 OF 2005 JOSEPH OGINGA …................................................................................ PLAINTIFF VERSUS CHEMELIL SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED …..................................... DEFENDANT RULING This is a ruling on the Advocate/Applicant's reference by way of Chamber Summons dated 11th August 2014. By that reference the Advocate/Applicant seeks to quash the taxing officer's decision on items 5 and 10 and the item on interest in the Bill of Costs dated 7th October 2013. The application was vehemently opposed principally on the ground that the same was filed out of time without leave. Both Advocates duly filed their submissions which I have now had ample opportunity to peruse. I must agree with the Advocate for the Client/Respondent that this reference is incompetent. Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order gives a party aggrieved by the decision of the taxing officer 14 days within which to file a Notice of Objection in writing. Rule 11(2) requires the taxing officer to furnish those reasons forthwith and once the aggrieved party receives them they have fourteen days to file a reference. In this case the decision of the taxing officer was delivered on 26th June 2014. On 3rd July 2014 the Advocate/Applicant filed a Notice of Objection in writing and on 10th July 2014 the taxing officer replied

page 1 of 2