Del Monte Kenya Limited v Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KNCCI) Murang’a Chapter & 2 others [2021] KEELC 102 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that Kshs 75,000 in legal fees for a 1,500-acre land case was too low and ordered the bill be re-taxed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Kshs 75,000/-
Yes - the instruction fees of Kshs 75,000/- were extremely low compared to the subject matter (about 1,500 acres of land) and the complex public-interest issues in Murang'a ELC 86 of 2018
The Court accepted the Taxing Master's finding that the value of the subject matter was not disclosed in the pleadings or judgment, and that submissions cannot constitute pleadings. However, weighing the nature and importance of the cause, the vast land size and the complex issues of public interest including renewal of a lease held over 99 years, the Court found the award so manifestly low as to amount to an error of principle warranting interference.
Whether the procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order was complied with
The Court found the Applicant complied with all the mandatory requirements of Rule 11, including giving notice of objection and obtaining the Taxing Master's reasons
Rule 11 prescribes a mandatory sequence: notice of objection within 14 days, the Taxing Officer records and gives reasons, and the objector then applies to a judge by chamber summons within 14 days of receiving the reasons. The Court noted the impugned Ruling of 25th January 2021 and reasons given on 21st June 2021 and found the Applicant had complied with all requirements before proceeding to the merits.
Who should bear the costs of the application
The Applicant, as the successful party, is entitled to costs since no special circumstances exist
Costs follow the event unless special circumstances are shown. The application was unopposed despite service, but the Court found no special circumstances and awarded the successful Applicant the costs of the application in the ordinary exercise of its discretion.
Legal principles established
#- A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's decision on quantum unless there is an error of principle or the discretion was improperly exercised resulting in injustice
- The value of the subject matter for taxation is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; if not ascertainable, the Taxing Officer may exercise discretion using relevant factors
- Submissions do not constitute pleadings or evidence and a Taxing Master is not bound by amounts asserted in submissions
- Failure to ascertain or correctly value the subject matter is an error of principle justifying setting aside instruction fees
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling of the Taxing Master dated 25th January 2021 is vacated/set aside in terms of Prayer 1
- 2.The 1st Defendant's Bill of Costs dated 29th June 2020 is referred back to the Taxing Master for fresh taxation taking into account the complex issues raised in Murang'a ELC No. 86 of 2018 (Prayer 2)
- 3.The Applicant, being the successful party, is awarded the costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master (Deputy Registrar, S.K. Nyaga)
- Murang'a ELC 86 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 11 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 Laws of Kenya, read with Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Del Monte Kenya Limited v Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KNCCI) Murang’a Chapter & 2 others [2021] KEELC 102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Reference dated 2nd July 2021 (re Taxing Master's Ruling of 25th January 2021 in Murang'a ELC No. 86 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/102/eng@2021-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.