B. W. Kenzi & Co. Advocates v Philip Mutiso Makau [2021] KEHC 946 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 946
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 946 (KLR)
- Decided
- 24 December 2021
The value of the subject matter for taxation purposes should be based on the value stated in the bill of costs, which is Kshs.10,000,000/=, rather than the actual value of the property.
Facts
The applicant challenges the taxed costs awarded in favour of B. W. Kenzi Advocates in a taxation cause No. 10 of 2019. The applicant argues that the taxing officer erred in enhancing the basic fee and interpreting the Court of Appeal Rules.
Issues
- Taxing officer's enhancement of basic fee under item 1 without considering the subject matter stated in the primary pleadings.
- Taxing officer's jurisdiction to tax costs arising from services rendered in the Court of Appeal.
- Taxing officer's interpretation of Rule 111 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Reasoning
The court found that the taxing officer erred in enhancing the basic fee and interpreting the Court of Appeal Rules, and that the value of the subject matter should be based on the value stated in the bill of costs.
Outcome
The reference succeeds, and the bill of costs is remitted back for a fresh taxation before Hon. Analo (RM).
Orders
- Remit the bill of costs back for a fresh taxation before Hon. Analo (RM).
Remedies
- Remission of the bill of costs for a fresh taxation.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Court of Appeal Rules
- Schedule of Fees
Cases cited (3)
- Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd EACJ Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010
- Reese v Alberta (1993) 5 A.L.R. 40
- R v Ministry of Agriculture & 2 others exparte Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 others (2006) eKLR
Loading judgment…