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

Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates v Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application E1082 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 3324 (KLR) (Civ) (1 July 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEHC 3324 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3324
Citation
[2022] KEHC 3324 (KLR)
Decided
1 July 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTaxation of CostsPostureAppeal from a decision of a taxing officerCoramEC MWITA
Holding

The court held that the taxing officer erred in principle by considering interest as part of the value of the subject matter and by not applying the correct principle in determining instruction fee.

Facts

Rachuonyo & Rachuonyo Advocates filed a bill of costs against Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited. The taxing officer allowed the bill at Kshs. 66,937,813.50, including Kshs. 156,938,000 from the plaint and Kshs. 550,000,000 from the counterclaim. The client challenged the decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer correctly identified the value of the subject matter for instruction fee
  2. Whether the taxing officer applied the correct principle in determining instruction fee
  3. Whether the taxing officer erred in considering interest as part of the value of the subject matter

Reasoning

The court ruled that the taxing officer should identify the value of the subject matter from the pleadings, judgment, or settlement, and that interest should not be included in this value. The court also found that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle in determining instruction fee.

Outcome

The application was granted, and the bill of costs was remitted for taxation afresh with directions on the correct approach.

Orders

  • Remission of the bill of costs for taxation afresh

Remedies

  • Remission of the bill of costs for taxation afresh

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Advocates Remuneration Order
Cases cited (4)
  • Nyangito & Co Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd (HCCMISC. Cause No. 843 of 2013)
  • Vipul Premchand Haria v Kilonzo & Co Advocates [2020] eKLR
  • Rogan-Kemper v Lord Grosvenor (No.3) [1977] KLR 303
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espaniol (Civil Application No. 29 of 2019)
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