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

Hakika Transport Services Limited v Isaac Onyango & Company Advocates (Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2343 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2343 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2343
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2343 (KLR)
Decided
28 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication to set aside ruling on Advocates Bill of CostsCoramM. MBARŨ
Holding

The application is struck out, and the respondent is awarded Kshs. 15,000 in costs.

Facts

Hakika Transport Services Limited filed an application challenging the taxation of an Advocates Bill of Costs by a taxing master in a previous case (Mombasa ELRC No. E066 of 2022). The applicant alleged errors in the taxation and sought a remand for a fresh taxation.

Issues

  1. Taxing master's failure to consider the award in the claim
  2. Taxing master's exercise of discretion in taxing instruction fee
  3. Taxing master's finding that the Bill was drawn to scale
  4. Taxing master's award of costs at an aggregate sum of Kshs. 852,762.50
  5. Taxing master's failure to consider public policy implications on the sustained practice of law

Reasoning

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the rules for filing a reference and that the application was premised on a separate cause not before the court. The court also noted that the applicant did not provide the Advocate's Bill of Costs or the ruling from the previous case.

Outcome

Struck out

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • Respondent awarded Kshs. 15,000 in costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Remuneration Order
Cases cited (2)
  • Kipkorir, Titoo & Ikiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board
  • Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur K. Magugu & another CA 199/2002
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