P Sang & Company Advocates v Kigen (Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7106 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court reinstated an advocate's bill of costs, ruling it was not barred by an earlier failed bill filed through a different law firm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a Taxing Officer may determine a preliminary objection raising jurisdictional issues during taxation
Yes - the Taxing Officer had jurisdiction to hear and determine the preliminary objection dated 12.03.2024
Relying on paragraph 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014 and the Komosi v Flamco authority, the court held that a Taxing Officer must be clothed with jurisdiction before assessing a bill and may determine preliminary issues such as the existence of an advocate-client relationship before assessment.
Whether the Bill of Costs dated 19.02.2024 was res judicata and liable to be struck out
No - the bill was not res judicata to the earlier bill dated 25.04.2023 and should not have been struck out
The earlier ruling of 20.09.2023 dismissed the first bill solely for lack of advocate-client relationship between Mugumya & Company and the respondent, without determining the merits or barring a fresh bill by the proper party. Rogers Mugumya was merely an agent of P. Sang & Company, not a substantive party, so the parties were not identical and res judicata did not apply.
Legal principles established
#- A Deputy Registrar/Taxing Officer has jurisdiction to hear and determine preliminary issues going to the jurisdiction of the court (such as the existence of an advocate-client relationship) before subjecting a bill of costs to assessment.
- Res judicata in taxation requires identity of parties; a prior ruling that did not deal with the merits of a bill of costs does not bar a fresh bill filed by the proper party.
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons dated 06.05.2024 is merited
- 2.The ruling and decree of the taxing officer pronounced on 25.04.2024 is set aside and/or vacated
- 3.The bill of costs dated 19.02.2024 be and is hereby referred to the taxing officer of Kilgoris Environment & Land Court for assessment
- 4.Each party will bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraphs 12 and 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; reference against a Taxing Master's ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "P Sang & Company Advocates v Kigen (Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Kilgoris Miscellaneous Application No. E003 of 2024 (Reference). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7106/eng@2024-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.