Molonket v East Africa Portland Cement (Cause 198 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2573 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Taxing Officer fell into an error of principle in taxing the instructions fees and getting up fees
Key legal issues
#Whether the taxation of instructions fees and getting up fees was erroneous
Yes - the Taxing Officer erred in principle by arriving at Kshs 403,315/- without explanation, a figure inconsistent with 2% of the decretal sum under Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The court noted that under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, fees are computed on a graduated basis at specified levels with 2% of the balance of the decretal sum. Two percent of the Kshs 15,165,782/- awarded would be Kshs 303,315/-, yet the Taxing Officer taxed Kshs 403,315/- with no explanation. The getting up fees were then computed as one third of that unexplained figure. The unexplained and incorrect computation amounted to an error of principle, justifying re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer.
Legal principles established
#- A Taxing Officer who arrives at a taxed sum without explanation falls into an error of principle warranting re-taxation before a different Taxing Officer
Court orders
#- 1.The Reference is allowed
- 2.The parties to appear before a different Taxing Officer for re-taxing of the instructions fees and getting up fees
- 3.Costs of the Reference in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a Taxing Officer's decision under the Advocates Remuneration Order
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.
This Court, therefore, finds that the Taxing Officer fell into an error of principle.
The Reference is allowed with an order that the parties appear before a difierent Taxing Oficer for purposes of re-taxing the instructions fees and getting up fees.
Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order sets out the scales of fees applicable.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case/reference number or the name of the Respondent; it also contains typographical errors in the orders
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.
- Chikulolo v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 812 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1821 (KLR)20 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Molonket v East Africa Portland Cement (Cause 198 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 2573 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Reference filed 12 September 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2573/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.