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

Moronge & Company Advocates v Kenya Airports Authority [2014] KECA 816 (KLR)

[2014] KECA 816 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
816
Citation
[2014] KECA 816 (KLR)
Decided
21 February 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a Ruling of the High Court of KenyaCoramKARANJA, AZANGALALA, KANTAI JJ. A
Holding

The court set aside the Certificate of Costs issued in favor of Moronge & Company Advocates and retaxed the bill at Kshs. 1.2 million.

Facts

The Kenya Airports Authority sued 99 individuals in Kisumu High Court Civil Suit No. 179 of 2009. The Kenya Airports Authority instructed Moronge & Company Advocates to defend the suit. The Advocates demanded fees of Kshs. 638,779,000. The Advocates' bill of costs was taxed at Kshs. 278,416,690. The Advocates sought to recover the taxed costs in Misc. Application No. 138 of 2011, which led to the High Court Civil Suit No. 124 of 2011 challenging the taxation.

Issues

  1. Improper determination by the learned Judge of the value of the subject matter of the suit.
  2. Retaxing the bill of costs without jurisdiction.
  3. Considering the client's reference when the same was incompetent having been filed contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Reasoning

The court found the Advocates' bill of costs excessive and set aside the taxation, ordering a new tax.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Certificate of Costs issued in favor of Moronge & Company Advocates was set aside.
  • The Advocates' bill of costs was retaxed at Kshs. 1.2 million.

Remedies

  • The Advocates' bill of costs was retaxed at Kshs. 1.2 million.
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case