Supply Linkages v Hudson Mangeni [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
W. Musyoka
Judgment Date
October 30, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Supply Linkages v Hudson Mangeni [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Supply Linkages v. Hudson Mangeni
- Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 270 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- Date Delivered: 30th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): W. Musyoka
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving the following legal issues:
a. Whether the learned trial magistrate had jurisdiction to tax the respondent’s bill of costs.
b. Whether the learned trial magistrate allowed items in the bill of costs that are not provided for under Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2006 and/or 2014.
c. Whether the learned trial magistrate should have awarded Kshs. 1,000.00 instead of Kshs. 1,400.00 for the item of service.

3. Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Supply Linkages, contested the taxation of costs awarded to the respondent, Hudson Mangeni, by a trial magistrate. The dispute arose from a previous civil suit, leading to the respondent filing a bill of costs, which the magistrate taxed. The appellant argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to tax the bill, that certain items were improperly included in the costs, and that the service fee awarded was excessive.

4. Procedural History:
The case commenced in a subordinate court where the respondent’s bill of costs was filed and taxed. The appellant subsequently filed a reference to the High Court challenging the taxation on several grounds, including jurisdiction and the appropriateness of the taxed items. The High Court judge reviewed the submissions and the record of proceedings from the subordinate court.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which grants courts discretion to award costs and defines the jurisdiction of the court. The Advocates Remuneration Order, particularly Schedule VII, was also central to the court's analysis regarding the taxation of costs.
- Case Law: The court referenced several cases, including *Bernard Gichobi Njira vs. Kanini Njira Kathendu & another [2015] eKLR*, which affirmed that magistrates have jurisdiction to assess costs. The court also cited *KANU National Elections Board & 2 others vs. Salah Yakub Farah [2018] eKLR*, emphasizing that interference with a taxing officer’s discretion requires clear evidence of error.
- Application: The court found that the magistrate had the jurisdiction to tax costs and that the terminology of "taxation" versus "assessment" was semantically interchangeable. The court upheld that the items challenged by the appellant were permissible under Schedule VII of the Advocates Remuneration Order, particularly regarding necessary attendances. However, it concluded that the magistrate incorrectly applied the Advocates Remuneration Order of 2014 without considering the applicable order at the time of the suit's filing, which was the 2006 Order.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the reference and setting aside the trial court’s order regarding the assessment of costs. The court directed that the respondent’s bill of costs be reassessed using the appropriate Advocates Remuneration Order applicable at each relevant time. This ruling underscored the importance of applying the correct legal standards in cost assessments.

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

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya in *Supply Linkages v. Hudson Mangeni* addressed significant issues regarding the jurisdiction of magistrates in taxing costs and the proper application of the Advocates Remuneration Orders. The court's decision to allow the appellant's reference and direct a reassessment of costs emphasizes the necessity for adherence to procedural correctness in legal cost determinations. The case serves as a critical reference for future disputes involving the taxation of costs in civil proceedings.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Supply-Linkages-v-Hudson-Mangeni-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2764_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries