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

Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Tom Ojienda & Associates [2018] KEELRC 2397 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2397 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2397
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2397 (KLR)
Decided
8 February 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureAppeal from original trialCoramHON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
Holding

The taxing master's valuation of the subject matter was incorrect, and the instruction fees were raised by one half, contrary to established principles. The bill of costs is directed to be re-submitted for taxation before another taxing master.

Facts

The Applicant, MUMIAS SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED, sought to vary and set aside the Hon. W. Ngumi's ruling on the Respondent's bill of costs, arguing that the taxing master erred in law and in fact by relying on Kshs.1,000,000 as the value of the subject matter instead of Kshs.175,520 as per the judgement.

Issues

  1. Taxing Master's valuation of the subject matter
  2. Taxing Master's application of law in raising instructing fees
  3. Taxing Master's consideration of the Applicants' submissions
  4. Taxing Master's award of disbursements without evidence
  5. Taxing Master's award of costs
  6. Arithmetical errors in the bill of costs

Reasoning

The taxing master's valuation of the subject matter was incorrect, and the instruction fees were raised by one half, contrary to established principles. The bill of costs is directed to be re-submitted for taxation before another taxing master.

Outcome

Application allowed

Orders

  • Bill of costs to be re-submitted for taxation before another taxing master

Remedies

  • Re-submission of bill of costs for taxation

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2009
  • Civil Procedure Act
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