Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya (LSK); David Iuean Jenkins & 5 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte David RN Odhoch [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamweya
Judgment Date
September 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Republic v Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya (LSK); David Iuean Jenkins & 5 others (Interested Parties) Ex parte David RN Odhoch [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic vs. Disciplinary Committee Law Society of Kenya & Others
- Case Number: Judicial Review Misc. Application No. 639 of 2006
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: September 29, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamweya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving whether the Respondent's application complied with Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, whether the Taxing Master's taxation of the disputed items in the Bill of Costs was erroneous, and whether the remedies sought by the Respondent were warranted.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Applicant, Republic, brought forth a Chamber Summons application on February 6, 2020, challenging a ruling made on December 11, 2019, by the Taxing Master regarding the taxation of a Bill of Costs. The Respondent, Law Society of Kenya, argued that due to procedural issues—including the unavailability of a typed ruling and difficulties in serving the ex parte Applicant—the application for taxation was filed late. The ex parte Applicant countered that the application was an attempt to delay payment for awarded costs and that the Respondent had been aware of their advocate's new office location.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the Taxing Master’s ruling on December 11, 2019, taxing the Bill of Costs at Kshs 466,123.30. The Respondent filed a Notice of Objection on December 19, 2019, but the application for a reference was not filed until February 6, 2020, prompting the ex parte Applicant to argue that the Respondent had failed to comply with the required timelines.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, which outlines the procedure for objecting to a Taxing Officer's decision, including the timelines for filing objections and references.
- Case Law: The court referenced *First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others (2002)*, which established that a court can only interfere with a taxing officer's decision if it is shown that the decision was based on an error of principle or if the fee awarded was manifestly excessive. Additionally, *Kipkorir Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs. Deposit Protection Fund* was cited regarding the assessment of instruction fees.
- Application: The court found that the Respondent's application complied with the procedural rules despite being filed late, as the delay was justified by the circumstances surrounding the unavailability of the Taxing Master's ruling. The court determined that the Taxing Master had erred in applying the wrong legal provision for instruction fees and in the assessment of the getting up fees, thus warranting a re-taxation of the disputed items.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the Respondent, allowing the application to set aside the Taxing Master's decision regarding the instruction fees and getting up fees, and remitting the Bill of Costs for re-taxation. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that procedural justice is upheld while also addressing errors in legal interpretation and application.

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

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled to set aside the Taxing Master's decision on the taxation of a Bill of Costs due to errors in legal interpretation and application. The matter was remitted for re-taxation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring fair compensation for legal representation. This case highlights the complexities involved in the taxation of costs and the court's role in correcting errors to uphold justice.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Disciplinary-Committee-Law-Society-of-Kenya-LSK--David-Iuean-Jenkins--5-others-Interested-Parties-Ex-parte-David-RN-Odhoch-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2517_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries