Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant challenged the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of her preliminary objection to the taxation of legal costs. The dispute arose from a case (Machakos CMCC No. 525 of 2017) where the Advocate filed a Miscellaneous Application (No. 551 of 2019) to tax costs. The Applicant argued the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction as the original proceedings were in the Magistrate's Court. The Court ruled that the Advocates Remuneration Order, not the Civil Procedure Act, governs taxation of costs, and the Deputy Registrar correctly dismissed the objection as the Order specifies High Court registrars handle such taxation. The reference was dismissed.
Issues
The primary legal issue addressed was whether the Deputy Registrar of the High Court had jurisdiction to tax the advocate's bill of costs when the original legal proceedings were initiated in the Magistrate's Court. The court analyzed the Advocates Remuneration Order and Civil Procedure Act to determine the correct taxing authority.
Holdings
- The court held that the Deputy Registrar correctly dismissed the preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction, as taxation of advocate-client costs falls under the High Court's jurisdiction as per the Advocates Remuneration Order, not the Magistrate's Court. The ruling clarified that section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act governs cost determination, not taxation, and paragraph 49 of the Advocates Remuneration Order defines 'the Court' but does not confer taxation jurisdiction to Magistrate's Courts.
- The court noted that challenges to the taxing officer's jurisdiction should be referred to a Judge, but this was not necessary as the reference failed and was dismissed. The ruling affirmed the Deputy Registrar's authority as the taxing officer under the Advocates Remuneration Order and clarified that the reference to jurisdictional competence was moot given the outcome.
- The court distinguished between the process of taxation in advocate-client matters (done in a miscellaneous cause) and assessment in the same cause for party and party costs, emphasizing they are separate procedures under the Advocates Remuneration Order. This contrasts with the practice in Magistrate's Courts where assessment occurs within the original cause.
Remedies
- No order was made regarding the costs of the reference due to late submissions from both parties.
- The court dismissed the reference seeking to set aside the taxing master's ruling, finding no jurisdictional error.
Legal Principles
The court applied the Advocates Remuneration Order to determine that taxation of costs between advocate and client must be conducted by the High Court's taxing officer (Deputy Registrar) under a 'miscellaneous cause', distinct from the assessment of costs in subordinate courts. It emphasized that section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act governs cost allocation, not taxation, and that challenges to a taxing officer's jurisdiction require judicial review.
Precedent Name
- M/S Behan & Okero Advocates vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited
- Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates vs. Pan Africa Insurance Company Limited & Another
- Machira & Co. Advocates vs. Magugu
- Bernard Gichomba Njira vs. Kanini Njira Kathendu & Anor.
Cited Statute
- Advocates Remuneration Order
- Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
G.V. Odunga
Passage Text
- It is therefore clear beyond paradventure that for the purposes of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the taxing officer is the registrar or district registrar or deputy registrar of the High Court...
- The process of taxation must be distinguished from the process of determination of costs before the Magistrate's Courts as between the parties thereto. That process is called assessment of costs and not taxation.
- The law and practice is that where the jurisdiction of the Taxing Officer is challenged, the matter ought to be referred to the Judge since the mandate of the Taxing Officer is limited to taxation.