Republic v. The Constituency Development Board & Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission Ex Parte Thomas Mongare Moindi, Philemon M. Apiemi, Mary K. Ondieki, and John A. Onyancha [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
October 13, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 case summary of Republic v. The Constituency Development Board & Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, highlighting key legal findings involving Thomas Mongare Moindi and others.

Case Brief: Republic v Constituency Development Board Exparte Thomas Mongare Moindi & 3 others Suing as Officials of The Millennium Forum For Unity and Development; Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The Constituency Development Board & Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission Ex Parte Thomas Mongare Moindi, Philemon M. Apiemi, Mary K. Ondieki, and John A. Onyancha
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. 264 of 2010
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 13, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
1. What costs were the subject of taxation by the taxing master?
2. Was the taxation by the taxing master of the disputed items in the ex parte applicants’ Party and Party Bill of Costs made in error of principle?
3. Are the remedies sought by the ex parte applicants merited?

3. Facts of the Case:
The ex parte applicants, Thomas Mongare Moindi, Philemon M. Apiemi, Mary K. Ondieki, and John A. Onyancha, are officials of the Millennium Forum for Unity and Development. They initiated judicial review proceedings against the Constituency Development Board, seeking to set aside a ruling delivered by the Deputy Registrar, Hon. L. Mumassabba, regarding the taxation of costs awarded to the Respondent. The applicants claimed that the Deputy Registrar had erroneously taxed the costs of the entire judicial review proceedings instead of limiting them to the specific application dated June 26, 2014. The applicants argued that the taxation was excessive and unjust.

4. Procedural History:
The case began in 2010, with a judicial review application that led to a ruling in April 2011, granting the ex parte applicants the orders sought and awarding costs. Subsequent applications, including one on June 26, 2014, were dismissed with costs to the Respondent. The Respondent's bill of costs was taxed by the Deputy Registrar in December 2019, leading to the current application for judicial review filed by the ex parte applicants in May 2020.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered relevant statutes, including:
- Civil Procedure Act: Section 27 outlines the discretion of the court regarding costs.
- Advocates Act: Sections 44, 45, and 48 detail the taxation of costs and the procedure for recovery.
- Advocates Remuneration Order: This governs the remuneration of advocates in contentious matters.

Case Law:
The court referenced several cases, including:
- First American Bank of Kenya v. Shah and Others [2002] 1 E.A. 64: Established that a court cannot interfere with a taxing officer’s decision unless there is an error of principle or the fee is manifestly excessive.
- Joreth Ltd v. Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92: Affirmed that the taxing master exercises judicial discretion that can only be interfered with under specific conditions.
- Republic v. Ministry of Agriculture & 2 Others Ex parte Muchiri W’Njuguna & 6 Others (2006) e KLR: Provided guidelines for taxing instruction fees.

Application:
The court found that the taxing master erred in taxing the costs as if they were for the entire proceedings, rather than the specific application. It also noted that the wrong Advocates Remuneration Order was applied, leading to an erroneous assessment of instruction fees and getting-up fees. The court determined that the correct applicable law was the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order of 2014, which stipulates a minimum instruction fee of Kshs. 5,000 for opposing applications.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the ex parte applicants, setting aside the taxing master’s ruling on the Respondent’s Party and Party Bill of Costs and remitting the bill for fresh taxation by a different taxing master. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to proper legal principles in the taxation of costs.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the ex parte applicants, setting aside the previous taxation of costs awarded to the Respondent. The court emphasized the necessity of correct legal principles in the assessment of costs and the need for fresh taxation of the Respondent's bill. This ruling has implications for future cases regarding the taxation of costs, reinforcing the standards that taxing masters must adhere to when making determinations.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-The-Constituency-Development-Board--Kenya-Anti-Corruption-Commission-Ex-Parte-Thomas-Mongare-Moindi-Philemon-M-Apiemi-Mary-K-Ondieki-and-John-A-Onyancha-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2415_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries