Andy Forwarders Services Limited & 1 other v Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that clients challenging their legal bill must prove an error of principle, and must produce the documents they want used to set fees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Error of principle as the threshold for interference with a taxing officer's decision
The Court upheld the two courts below: absent an error of principle, or a manifestly excessive award, the taxation stands.
The Court restated that interference with a taxing officer's decision lies only on proof of an error of principle, and that a manifestly excessive instruction fee may support an inference of such error. Here the taxing officer applied the Joreth Limited v Kigano principles, found the subject matter unascertainable from the pleadings, judgment or settlement, and exercised her discretion having considered the nature and importance of the matter, the work done and all relevant circumstances. The High Court found no error of principle, and this Court agreed.
Whether the instruction fee should have been based on the Deed of Settlement
No. The Deed of Settlement was confidential and not disclosed to the taxing officer; the clients, who possessed it, bore the onus of producing it; and it disclosed no value in any event.
The clients instructed the advocates that the settlement details were confidential to shareholders, so they could not fault the advocates for non-disclosure. The Deed first surfaced as an attachment to an affidavit filed in June 2016, well after taxation, and even then revealed no monetary value. The taxing officer therefore properly exercised her discretion in fixing the instruction fee without reference to the settlement, and the Judge correctly declined to disturb that exercise.
Legal principles established
#- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision on a reference only where it is satisfied that the decision is based on an error of principle; a manifestly excessive award may justify such an inference.
- An appellate court may interfere with the High Court's discretionary decision only on the established grounds of misdirection in law, misapprehension of facts, taking into account irrelevant or failing to take into account relevant considerations, or a decision that is plainly wrong.
- Where a party has possession of a document (such as a Deed of Settlement) and intends to rely on it before a taxing officer, it is incumbent on that party to produce it; it cannot fault the opposing party for non-disclosure of a document kept confidential from that party.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the advocates
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.MISC. C.APPL. No. 135 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court's ruling in an advocate-client taxation reference (Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009, Rule 11(2))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ernest Wanjohi Maina v Albert Gachore Mwangi [2022] KEELC 336 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 336 (KLR)30 Mar 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Andy Forwarders Services Limited & 1 other v Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/552/eng@2019-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.