Stratman v Putzker (Environment & Land Case 3 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 681 (KLR) (18 February 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 681
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 681 (KLR)
- Decided
- 18 February 2025
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for setting aside and remitting bill of costsCoramL.L NAIKUNI
Holding
The Court finds that the Taxing Master erred in assessing the costs and sets aside the decision, remitting the bill of costs to a different taxing officer for re-assessment.
Facts
The Defendant/Applicant, Steffen Putzker, sought to have the Deputy Registrar's ruling on the Respondent's party and party bill of costs set aside or remitted, arguing that the Taxing Master erred in assessing instruction and getting up fees.
Issues
- Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in the assessment of instruction and getting up fees
- Whether the bill of costs dated 18th October 2022 should be reviewed, taxed off or remitted before a different taxing officer
Reasoning
The Court held that the Taxing Master erred in principle by failing to consider relevant factors such as the value of the property and the provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Outcome
The application is allowed, the bill of costs is remitted, and each party bears its own costs.
Orders
- The bill of costs dated 18th October, 2022 is re-assessed to a sum of Kshs. 150,000/- for instruction fees and Kshs. 50,000/- for getting up fees.
- The Taxing Officer is directed to re-calculate the new assessed amount and issue a new Certificate of Costs.
- The other items will remain as taxed.
Remedies
- Remission of the bill of costs to a different taxing officer for re-assessment
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Act
- Advocates Act
Cases cited (2)
- Joreth Limited - Versus - Kigano & Associates Advocates [2002] EA92
- C.N. Kihara Advocates Versus Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation [MYWO]2021 eKLR
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.
Loading judgment…