Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court reviewed a dispute over taxation of legal costs in a case between Kenya Union of Entertainment and Music Industry Employees and Vanguard Limited. The ruling addressed claims for costs under items 2, 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the Bill of Costs. Key findings included reducing Item 2 costs from Kshs 49,000 to 10,000 (as it was a notice of motion, not a fresh suit) and Item 3 getting-up fees from 16,000 to 8,000 (no full trial occurred). Items 9 and 11 (court attendance) were upheld at Kshs 21,000. The total revised costs were calculated in a table. The ruling was delivered on 2015-07-03 by Principal Judge Mathews Nderi Nduma.
Tax Type
Legal Costs Taxation
Issues
- The court ruled that an application dated 29.5.2013 was never served or heard, making it invalid and disallowing any costs under this claim.
- The court considered whether getting up fees were applicable in a case where proceedings were conducted via affidavit evidence and written submissions, without a full trial, and adjusted the allowed amount from Kshs 16,000 to 8,000.
- The court upheld the allowed sum of Kshs 21,000 for court attendance on two occasions, as the matter involved affidavit evidence and written submissions.
- The court addressed whether the taxing master correctly applied Schedule VI paragraph 1(b) instead of 1(o)(vi) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 for a Notice of Motion Application filed after the suit was determined, leading to a reduction in costs from Kshs 49,000 to 10,000.
Holdings
- The court upheld the allowed sum of Kshs 21,000 for court attendance under Items 9 and 11.
- The court found no fault in the amounts allowed for Items 19 to 23, as detailed in the revised computation table.
- The court reduced the costs allowed under Item 2 from Kshs 49,000 to Kshs 10,000, as the Notice of Motion was not necessitated by the Applicant's conduct.
- The court disallowed any amount for Item 6, as the Application dated 29.5.2013 was never served on the Applicant and unaddressed.
- The court reduced the getting up fees for Item 3 from Kshs 16,000 to Kshs 8,000, as the case proceeded via affidavit evidence and written submissions, not a full trial.
Remedies
- Costs under Item 6 approved at Kshs 735 without modification.
- Costs under Items 9 and 11 approved at Kshs 21,000 for court attendance on two occasions.
- Costs under Item 2 reduced from Kshs 49,000 to Kshs 10,000 as the Notice of Motion Application was not necessitated by the Applicant's conduct.
- Costs under Item 3 reduced from Kshs 16,000 to Kshs 8,000 for 'getting up fees' as the case did not proceed to full trial.
Tax Issue Category
Deductibility / Allowances
Legal Principles
The court applied costs principles to adjust fees awarded for legal proceedings. It reduced costs for a Notice of Motion application from Kshs 49,000 to 10,000, determining it did not constitute a fresh suit. Getting up fees were similarly adjusted from Kshs 16,000 to 8,000, recognizing the lighter workload from affidavit-based proceedings.
Disputed Tax Amount
89285.00
Precedent Name
Ramesh N. Patel Vs Attorney General and Another
Cited Statute
Advocates Remuneration Order 2009
Judge Name
Mathews Nderi Nduma
Passage Text
- The Applicant submitted that the Taxing master allowed Kshs 16,000 in respect of getting up fees... In this case there was no trial. Two applications were filed and were both disposed of by way of affidavit evidence. Therein therefore no basis for the award of getting up fees. The Court agrees... and replaces the allowed amount with Kshs 8,000.
- I find that the Notice of Motion was not necessitated by the conduct of the Applicant but by the Claimant after the matter had been heard and determined. It is therefore not right to visit the huge costs of Kshs 49,000 on the Applicant and the court reduces the costs allowed to Kshs 10,000 in place of 49,000 since it was a notice of motion Application dealt with by way of written submissions and cannot be equated to a fresh suit.
- The Application dated 29.5.2013 was never served on the Applicant and was never heard. The court finds that no amount is allowable under this claim.