SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 3) [1977] KECA 6 (KLR)

[1977] KECA 6 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
6
Citation
[1977] KECA 6 (KLR)
Decided
13 December 1977
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCosts AppealPostureAppeal from a decision of the taxing officer reducing the appellant's bill of costsCoramE.J.E. Law
Holding

The court reduces the instructions fee to Shs 8000 and the brief fee for senior counsel to Shs 10,000

Facts

The appellant, Rogan-Kamper, sought to reduce two items in the respondent's bill of costs: an instructions fee of Shs 15,000 and a brief fee of Shs 15,000. The taxing officer reduced these amounts by Shs 3000 and Shs 1000 respectively, allowing Shs 12,000 for the instructions fee and Shs 14,000 for senior counsel's brief fee.

Issues

  1. Whether the amounts awarded in the bill of costs are manifestly excessive
  2. Whether the taxing officer's decision should be reduced

Reasoning

The court considers the fees allowed by the taxing officer to be unreasonably large, especially in comparison to recent cases, and reduces them accordingly.

Outcome

The court reduces the instructions fee and brief fee as requested by the appellant

Orders

  • The bill of costs is altered accordingly
  • The court awards the appellant costs in the sum of Shs 290 plus Shs 20 disbursements, making Shs 220 in all

Remedies

  • The court awards the appellant costs in the sum of Shs 290 plus Shs 20 disbursements, making Shs 220 in all

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • Standard Bank Ltd v Mehotoro Farm Ltd (unreported)
  • Block v Commissioner of Income Tax (unreported)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No 3) [1972] E A 162
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case