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

Mwai & Company Advocates v Richard Wangondu Makanga [2017] KEELC 1858 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1858 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1858
Citation
[2017] KEELC 1858 (KLR)
Decided
19 September 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTaxation of Advocates' FeesPostureReference to Court to set aside taxing officer's decisionCoramE. O. OBAGA
Holding

The taxing officer erred in applying Schedule I and the correct schedule to be applied was Schedule V. The bill is set aside and referred back for fresh taxation.

Facts

The client/applicant instructed the firm of Messers Mwai & Co. Advocates to purchase 1875 Shares in Nairobi Theatres Limited. The transaction was rescinded and the deposit was refunded. The Advocates demanded fees based on Schedule I of the Advocates Remuneration Order of 2009, but the client/applicant argued that Schedule V should be applied.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer applied the correct schedule in determining the instruction fee in item No. 1 of the bill.
  2. Whether the transaction was completed for the purposes of Schedule V application.

Reasoning

The transaction was rescinded and the deposit refunded, but the Advocates argued they earned fees on instruction. The Advocates Remuneration Order provides for non-contentious business which is not completed, and Schedule V should have been applied.

Outcome

The client/applicant's application is granted, and the bill is referred back for fresh taxation.

Orders

  • The bill be referred back for fresh taxation in accordance with part II of Schedule V before a different taxing officer.
  • The applicant shall have costs of this application.

Remedies

  • Fresh taxation of the bill in accordance with Schedule V

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Remuneration Order of 2009
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