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

Cannon Assurance Limited v Anthony Thuo Kanai & another [2014] KEHC 5966 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5966 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5966
Citation
[2014] KEHC 5966 (KLR)
Decided
10 March 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePetition for Interference with Taxation of CostsPosturePetitioner seeks to strike out the respondent's bills of costs and restrain the respondent from raising any invoices or filing any other bills of costs against the petitioner.CoramD.S. Majanja, Tuiyott, Waweru
Holding

The petition is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Facts

The petitioner is an insurance company and the respondent is an advocate who was employed as its Legal Officer. The respondent filed bills of costs for taxation in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is entitled to remuneration both as the legal officer of the petitioner and separately as an independent professional.
  2. Whether the petitioner has the jurisdiction to interfere with the taxation of the respondent's bills of costs.

Reasoning

The court held that the taxation of bills of costs is governed by the Advocates Act and the Advocates Remuneration Order, and the court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the taxing officer's decision.

Outcome

Dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Advocates Act
  • Advocates Remuneration Order
Cases cited (2)
  • Machira & Co. Advocates v Arthur Magugu and Another Milimani HC Misc. Civil Application No. 358 of 2001(Unreported)
  • Doonholm Rahisi Stores (suing as a firm) v East African Portland Cement Limited [2005] 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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case