Job Nyasimi Momanyi t/a Nchogu, Omwanza & Nyasimi Advocates v Kenyatta National Hospital (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted enforcement of a Kshs. 358 million legal fees bill, finding it wildly out of step with an earlier Kshs. 24 million taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an ex parte order of stay of execution of the Taxing Master's Ruling dated 22nd January 2024 pending hearing of the second reference is merited
- 2.Whether the costs awarded on the second taxation (Kshs. 358,491,673) are manifestly excessive and erroneous
- 3.Whether an error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by consent of the parties rather than through prolonged argument
Key legal issues
#Whether the second taxation produced a manifestly excessive award warranting ex parte stay
Yes. The gap between the first taxation (Kshs. 24,436,357) and the second (Kshs. 358,491,673), and the absence of any items taxed off, persuaded the court that a stay was merited pending the second reference.
The court compared the two taxation outcomes and found a vast disparity supporting the Client's contention that the fresh award was inordinately high and grossly inflated. It found it difficult to see how the second taxation resulted in no items being taxed off, and concluded that an ex parte stay was merited to preserve the position until the reference is heard.
Whether the error apparent on the face of the record should be corrected by consent rather than contested litigation
The court expressed the view that the parties' advocates should concur in correcting the error instead of engaging in another prolonged round of legal argument on the Bill of Costs.
The court prioritised expeditious resolution, directing the Advocates to engage at their own level and strike a compromise on the reference, rather than subjecting the parties to a fresh full contest over the Bill of Costs in the second reference.
Legal principles established
#- A wide discrepancy between successive taxations supports a finding that the later taxation is manifestly excessive and justifies a stay of execution pending reference.
- An error apparent on the face of a taxation record is preferably corrected with the concurrence of the parties' advocates rather than through renewed litigation.
Court orders
#- 1.Execution of the Ruling delivered by Taxing Master dated 22nd January 2024, and all consequential orders, is stayed
- 2.The Application shall be served upon the Advocate
- 3.The Advocate to file and serve his Response, within 14 days of service
- 4.The Advocates to engage at their own level, and strike a compromise on the reference
- 5.Mention on 14th March 2024
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original supervisory jurisdiction over taxation of Advocate-Client Bill of Costs by the Deputy Registrar/Taxing Master; reference challenging a Taxing Master's Ruling
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is a world of difierence between the costs as taxed in the first taxation, and the second taxation, which tends to support the submission by the Client, that the costs granted on the second taxation, are manifestly excessive.
Execution of the Ruling delivered by Taxing Master dated 22nd January 2024, and all consequential orders, is stayed.
the Advocates to engage at their own level, and strike a compromise on the reference.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the opening paragraph states the stay is sought of a Ruling 'delivered by the Taxing Master, Hon. David O. Mbeja, Deputy Registrar on 22nd February 2024', but the body and orders date the impugned taxation Ruling to 22nd January 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Job Nyasimi Momanyi t/a Nchogu, Omwanza & Nyasimi Advocates v Kenyatta National Hospital (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 20th February 2024 in a Reference (arising from ELRC Cause No. 31 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/316/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.