Kiogora Mutai & Co Advocates v Joseph Kithinji Gitonga & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. S. Okong’o
Judgment Date
September 24, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the summary of Kiogora Mutai & Co Advocates v Joseph Kithinji Gitonga & another [2020] eKLR, detailing the court's findings and implications in this significant legal case.


Case Brief: Kiogora Mutai & Co Advocates v Joseph Kithinji Gitonga & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Kiogora Mutai & Co. Advocates v. Joseph Kithinji Gitonga & Nancy Karuta Gitonga
- Case Number: ELC Misc. Application No. 25 of 2018 (formerly Misc. Civil Application No. 159 of 2014)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: September 24, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. S. Okong’o
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented to the court included:
1. Whether the taxing officer erred in denying the applicant’s claim for interest on costs.
2. Whether the taxing officer erred in refusing to award the applicant instruction fees for acting for both the vendor and purchaser.
3. Whether the taxing officer erred in disallowing the applicant’s claim for fees related to negotiating stamp duty exemptions.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Kiogora Mutai & Co. Advocates, acted as legal counsel for the respondents, Joseph Kithinji Gitonga and Nancy Karuta Gitonga, during the sale of 19 apartments situated on L.R No. 2/167, Nairobi, and in the incorporation of a limited liability company, Lacasa Gardens Limited. After the applicant rendered its services, a dispute arose concerning the legal fees owed, prompting the applicant to file multiple bills of costs for taxation. The taxing officer, Hon. I.N. Barasa, later ruled on the taxation of these bills, leading to dissatisfaction from both parties and subsequent references to the court.

4. Procedural History:
The applicant filed a total of 20 bills of cost which were consolidated and taxed by the taxing officer, leading to a ruling on May 22, 2019. Both parties filed notices of objection to the taxation, with the applicant seeking to overturn decisions regarding interest on costs, instruction fees, and negotiation fees for stamp duty exemptions. The respondents sought to challenge the awarding of costs for unauthorized services and requested deductions for fees previously paid to the applicant.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009, particularly paragraph 7 regarding interest on costs and paragraph 11 concerning the filing of objections and references.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Nyangito & Co. Advocates v. Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd.* [2014] eKLR, which outlines the principles governing the interference with a taxing officer's discretion, and *First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v. Gulab P Shah & Others* (2002) 1 E.A. 61, regarding the court's discretion in matters of taxation.
- Application: The court determined that the taxing officer had erred in denying interest on costs, as the applicant had delivered bills that were not settled. The court found that the applicant had not sufficiently proven it acted for both vendor and purchaser, and thus the claim for instruction fees was rightly denied. Regarding the negotiation fees for stamp duty exemptions, the court noted this issue was not raised in the initial objection and therefore could not be considered.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the taxed costs would attract interest at 14% per annum from May 22, 2019, until payment. Additionally, the Kshs. 580,000 paid by the respondents would be deducted from the total costs due to the applicant. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs regarding the references.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case, as the judgment was delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case underscores the importance of proper documentation and evidence in legal fee disputes. The ruling clarifies the conditions under which interest on costs may be awarded and emphasizes the necessity for clear instructions in legal representation. The decision ultimately balances the interests of both advocates and clients in fee disputes, impacting future cases involving similar legal principles.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Kiogora-Mutai--Co-Advocates-v-Joseph-Kithinji-Gitonga--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1169_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries