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

Midrock Water Drilling Co. Ltd & another v National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation [2014] KEHC 6090 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 6090 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6090
Citation
[2014] KEHC 6090 (KLR)
Decided
17 March 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCosts DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of a Taxing MasterCoramGUSERWA & COMPANY ADVOCATES
Holding

The Court upholds the Taxing Master's decision on instruction fees and the assessment of certain items in the Bill of Costs, finding no error of principle or manifest excessiveness.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Midrock Water Drilling Co. Ltd, filed a suit in HCCC 45 of 2013 against the Defendant, National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation, regarding a contract dispute. The Plaintiff sought injunctive orders and a liquidated claim of Kshs. 20 million. The Defendant filed a counterclaim of Kshs. 73,500,000.

Issues

  1. Setting aside the Taxing Master's decision on instruction fees
  2. Reversing the Taxing Master's assessment of certain items in the Bill of Costs

Reasoning

The Court considers the value of the subject matter to be Kshs. 20 million and Kshs. 73,500,000, and the instruction fees are based on these values. The Court upholds the Taxing Master's exercise of discretion in increasing the instruction fees.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • The Application to set aside the Taxing Master's decision on instruction fees is dismissed
  • The Application to reverse the Taxing Master's assessment of certain items in the Bill of Costs is dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Amendment Order 2006
Cases cited (3)
  • Steel Construction Petroleum Engineering (EA) Limited v Uganda Sugar Factory (1970) EA 141
  • Joreth Limited Vs Kigano and Associates [2002] 1 E.A 92
  • Premchand Raichand Limited & another Vs Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and another [1972] E.A 162
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