Edwin Wawire Wafula v Diana Wikunza Milimu [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
N.A. Matheka
Judgment Date
October 26, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Edwin Wawire Wafula v Diana Wikunza Milimu [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Edwin Wawire Wafula v. Diana Wikunza Milimu
- Case Number: ELC MISC. CASE NO. 15 OF 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Date Delivered: 26th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): N.A. Matheka
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve whether the taxing master erred in assessing the instruction fees in the bill of costs filed by the applicant and whether the decision to award Ksh. 30,000 as instruction fees should be set aside or reviewed.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Edwin Wawire Wafula, filed an application challenging the taxing officer's decision regarding the instruction fees in a previous suit, Kakamega MCL & E 147 of 2019, which had been withdrawn. The applicant contended that his written submissions were not considered, and he argued that the taxing master misapplied the principles of calculating the value of the subject matter, leading to an unreasonably low award of Ksh. 30,000 as instruction fees. The respondent, Diana Wikunza Milimu, had previously filed the suit against the applicant but withdrew it before the inter partes hearing. The applicant acknowledged receiving Ksh. 42,950 from the respondent as part of the taxed costs.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed as follows:
- The respondent filed a suit against the applicant, which was later withdrawn.
- The applicant subsequently filed a bill of costs, which was assessed by the taxing master.
- The taxing master awarded Ksh. 30,000 as instruction fees, leading the applicant to file the current application seeking to set aside or review this decision.
- The court considered the application and the submissions from both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statute is the Advocates Remuneration Order, particularly Rule 11, which outlines the procedure for objecting to a taxing officer's decision and the grounds for such objections.
- Case Law: The court referenced several cases, including *First American Bank of Kenya v. Shah and Others (2002) EA 64* and *Joreth Ltd v. Kigano & Associates (2002) 1 EA 92*, which establish that a taxing officer’s discretion can only be interfered with if there is an error of principle or if the fee awarded is manifestly excessive.
- Application: The court found that the applicant's written submissions were filed after the taxing officer's decision and thus were not considered. The court determined that the taxing master had exercised discretion appropriately, considering the nature of the case and the work involved, and concluded that the amount awarded was not excessive or unjust.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the applicant's application, affirming the taxing master’s decision to award Ksh. 30,000 as instruction fees. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules in challenging a taxing officer's decision and emphasized the taxing officer's discretion in determining costs based on the specifics of each case.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as it was a ruling by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The court upheld the taxing officer's decision regarding the instruction fees, finding no error in principle or manifest excessiveness in the awarded amount. This case highlights the challenges in contesting a taxing master’s decision and reinforces the standard of judicial discretion applied in such matters. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar future cases regarding the assessment of legal costs in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Edwin-Wawire-Wafula-v-Diana-Wikunza-Milimu-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2739_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries