ADVOCATES TRAINING PROGRAMME

CIVIL LITIGATION

ATP 100

CLASS F

FIRM 7
Contents
FIRM F7 MEMBERS ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................................... iv
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS .......................................................... v
TABLE OF CASES ............................................................................................................................. vi
Guiding Principles in determining Costs ............................................................................................... 1
a. Costs Shall Follow an Event ........................................................................................................... 3
b. Court Has Discretion to Deprive Successful Party of Costs .......................................................... 5
c. Courts Should Be Keen to Save Costs ........................................................................................... 6
d. Appeals regarding costs only lie where there is explicit evidence of non- consideration of
facts .................................................................................................................................................... 7
e. No interests on costs if there is no express order........................................................................ 8
f. A defendant has no rights to costs upon the plaintiff’s withdrawal unless court orders ........... 8
g. Costs on set-off and counterclaim ................................................................................................ 9
h. A Party entitled to an injunction is also entitled to the costs of obtaining it ........................... 10
Principles Guiding the Taxing officer in Taxation of Costs ............................................................ 10
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10
The Taxation Process ..................................................................................................................... 12
Advocate-client costs ...................................................................................................................... 15
Taxing officer’s discretion ............................................................................................................. 15
Entering the instruction fees ...................................................................................................... 16
Complexity of issues .................................................................................................................... 16
Take into account relevant factors arising from the case ....................................................... 17
Volume of documents read during research ................................................................................ 18
Test of Comparability and consistency ..................................................................................... 18
Consider each case on its own merit ......................................................................................... 18
Reasonableness................................................................................................................................ 18
Avoidance of unjust enrichment................................................................................................ 19
Taxation is based on experience and opinion and not mathematics ...................................... 20
Operate within his or her authority .......................................................................................... 20
Agreement of the parties ................................................................................................................ 20
Directions from courts ................................................................................................................ 21
Taxing officer to be guided by the laws of taxation ................................................................. 21
Change of advocates or where more than one advocates work on one case .......................... 21
Wrong dates on a bill of costs are not fatal to taxation ........................................................... 21

i
 PARTY TO PARTY COSTS ......................................................................................................... 22
a) Discretion of the taxing officer in disputed items ..................................................................... 22
b) The taxing officer taxes the bill according to the law................................................................ 22
c) The taxing officer has no jurisdiction to award costs ................................................................ 23
d) The taxing officer has power to grant any order he or she deems fit and necessary .............. 23
e) Take into account joinder of issues ............................................................................................ 23
f) Necessity of costs to the attainment of justice .......................................................................... 24
g) Consider the interests of the party ............................................................................................. 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Draft Bill of Costs.................................................................................................................................. 25

ii
iii
DEDICATION

We, the members of Firm 7 of Class F 2018 academic year, declare that this firm project has
been researched and completed as a collective effort by the firm members and submitted as
required in fulfilment of the requirements for Civil litigation, ATP 100.

iv
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Advocates Act Cap 16, 2014

Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21

Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

v
TABLE OF CASES

Abdullah Rahimtullah and 2 others v Francis Xavier D’Silva Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1967

Aj Doen v Dobrisklonsky and Bhalla and Thakore [1957] EA 379 at 381-382

Allibhai Bahnji v Essa Thawer [1911- 12] 4KLR

Bhagwanji Premchand and others v JM Gomes and others (1956) 23 EACA 296 at 297

Bhangwanji Raja v Swaran Singh [1962] EA

Butt and another vs. Sifuna t/a Sifuna & Company Advocates

Chesoni J in GM Dodhia v Jos Hansen Soehne (EA) Ltd, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi,

Civil Appeal No45 of 1978

Cotran, J, in Kibutiri v Kenya Shell Ltd, High Court Civil Case No, 3398 of 1980

Crabble JA in Kohli and Others v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] EA219

D. N. Njogu and Co. Advocates v NBK (2007) eKLR

Danson Mutuku Muema vs. Julius Muthoka Muema & Others

First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64

First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64

Hasanali v City Motor Accessories Ltd & Others [1972] EA 423.

Jane Wanjiku Wambu v Anthony Kigamba Hato & 3 others [2017] eKLR

Jasbir Sign Rai & 3 others v Tarclochan Signh Rai & 4 others [2014] eKLR

John Maina Mburu T/A John Maina Mburu & Co. Advocates v George Gitau Munne (sued as

Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Gitau Munene) and 3 others [2015] eKLR

Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999 [2002] 1 EA 92

Joseph Oduor Anode V Kenya Red Cross Society

vi
Karuturu Networks Ltd & another vs. Dally Figgis Advocates

Khatijabai Jiwa Hashan v Zainab Daughter of Chandu Nansi

Kiska Ltd v De Angelis, [1969] EA 6

Kohli and others v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] EA 230

Little Africa Kenya Limited v Andrew Mwiti Jason [2014] eKLR

Mayer and four others v Trustees of the Rahimtulla Lalji Hirji Charitable Trust (1955) 22

EACA

Mbogo Vs Shah (1968) EA 93

Meru Farmers’ Co-operative Union V Suleiman

Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Evrest Enterprises Limited [2014] eKLR

Mwamba Rugby Football Club v Kenya Rugby Football Union, High Court of Kenya at

Nairobi, Civil case number 556 of 1981

Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] eKLR

Opa Pharmacy Ltd. vs. Howse & Mcgeorge Ltd

Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others

(2006) eKLR

Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others

(2006) eKLR

Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2Others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6Others

Santana Fernades v Kara Arjan and Sons and Others [1962] EA 473

vii
 vi
ii
Guiding Principles in determining Costs

Legal costs accrue at the time an advocate gets retained by his client upon taking instructions

and acting on those instructions by appearing before court and doing all legal documented work

until judgement or ruling is passed.1

The issue of costs has been said to be a reserve of the court or the presiding judge. The purpose

of the following research is to discuss using relevant statue law and determined case laws, the

principles that guide the judge or the court in determining issues of costs in a suit. To begin, it

is imperative to restate the guiding provision in the determination of the costs in civil suits.

27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provide the following

Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions

of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in

the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to

determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be

paid, and give all the necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that

the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those

powers; provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow

the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise direct.

This section gives court discretion and full power to determine; by whom and to what extent

costs are to be paid subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by any law

in force.

The Halsbury’s Law of England has also delved on the issue and stated the following,

1
Emmanuel Kyobika, ‘Concept of Civil Procedure in Kenya’, Law Africa 2017

1
 “The court has discretion as to whether costs2 are payable by one party to another, the

amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid. Where costs are in the discretion

of the court, a party has no right to costs unless and until the court awards them to him,

and the court has an absolute and unfettered discretion to award or not to award them.

This discretion must be exercised judicially; it must not be exercised arbitrarily but in

accordance with reason and justice.2”

Retired Justice Kuloba has also written on the issue of costs and said the following;

“Costs are in the unfettered discretion of the court, subject to such conditions and limitations

as may be prescribed and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, but they must

follow the events unless the court has good reason to order otherwise3.

In the case of Little Africa Kenya Limited v Andrew Mwiti Jason [2014] eKLR4, it was held

that, “Costs are not awarded as a matter of right. They are awarded at the discretion of the

Court. At the risk of monotony, the discretion must be exercised judicially and judicious; not

capriciously; not whimsically but upon defined legal principles5”.

The discretionary power of the court imputes that the superior courts are equally hesitant to

interfere with the issue of costs as determined by the subordinate courts. It is argued that since

costs are a matter in the discretion of the court, an appellate court will not interfere unless it is

satisfied that the lower court acted on a wrong principle 6 . Hon Justice (Retired) Kuloba

reaffirms the holding arguing that an appellate court should not interfere on the issue of costs

2 th
Edition (Re-issue), {2010}, Vol.10. para 16
3
Richard Kuloba, Judicial Hints On Civil Procedure (LawAfrica Publication 2009) at Page 94
4
[2014] eKLR CIVIL CASE NO. 149 OF 2011
5
Paragraph 11
6
Sir Alastair Forbes V-P in Bhangwanji Raja v Swaran Singh [1962] EA 219 at 229

2
merely because it feels that it would have made a different order itself but should only interfere

when it is of the opinion that the lower court used a wrong principle7.

It is agreed that the objective of ordering a party to pay costs is to reimburse the successful

party for the amounts incurred during the suit. Costs are not issued as a mere penal measure.

They seek to compensate the successful party for the expenses incurred in defending or

prosecuting the case.

a. Costs Shall Follow an Event

The word event as read from s. 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the result of all

proceedings incidental to the litigation8. However, where an action involves different issues

either arising from one cause of action or different cause of actions, the costs of any particular

issue goes to the party that wins it 9 . Normally, this principle provides that the party that

succeeds in a civil suit is entitled to costs that are paid by the party that lose the suit.

Nevertheless, the ordering of a party to pay costs is a discretionary power and should be

exercised judicially on fixed legal principles. As Odunga J., observed in Joseph Oduor Anode

V Kenya Red Cross Society, Nairobi 10

“… In matters of costs, the general rule as adumbrated in the aforesaid statute [the

Civil Procedure Act] is that costs follow the event unless the court is satisfied otherwise.

That satisfaction must, however, be patent on record. In other words, where the Court

7
Ibid 1
8
Ibid at Pg 95
9
Judicial Hints at page 99, "The words "the event" mean the result of all the proceedings to the litigation. The
event is the result of entire litigation. It is clear, however, that the word ‘event" is to be regarded as a collective
noun and is to be read distinctively so that in fact it may mean the "events" of separate issues in an action.
Thus, the expression "the costs shall follow the event" means that the party who on the whole succeeds in the
action gets the general costs of the action, but that, where the action involves separate issues, whether arising
under different causes of action or under one cause of action, the costs of any particular issue go to the party
who succeeds upon it. An issue in this sense need not go to the whole cause of action but includes any issue
which has a direct and definite event in defeating the claim to judgment in the whole or in part. 10HIGH COURT
CIVIL SUIT NO. 66 OF 2009; [2012] eKLR

3
 decides not to follow the general principle, the Court is enjoined to give reasons for not

doing so.…”

This principle means that costs are awarded to a successful party after a judgment in their favor.

The object is to reimburse them the expenses they incurred in pursuing the suit. Costs are, thus,

a means by which a successful litigant recoups expenses to which he put in fighting an action.

Costs should not, therefore, be made merely as a penal measure unless it is meant to purge non-

compliance or non-adherence by the party with orders of court or requirements under the law10.

Nonetheless, costs will be denied to the successful party in the suit if such party is guilty of

misconduct or omission or neglect, or vexatious or oppressive conduct 11.Therefore, costs are

not used to penalize the losing party but for compensating the successful party for the trouble

taken in prosecuting a suit. The legal policy behind these rules is that it is the right of an

aggrieved party to come to court to have his rights vindicated and to be able to recover all costs

which have been occasioned by the party on the wrong12. Issuance of costs to a successful

party cannot be denied or deprived even if the matter proceeded ex-parte or was uncontested13.

Rtd Justice Kuloba supports this statement when he wrote that,

“Furthermore, a successful party cannot be deprived of his costs merely because the suit

proceeded ex parte or uncontested. This is to say, the fact that the unsuccessful party did not

contest the case is not in itself a ground for refusal of costs, but it is a factor that can be taken

into account if other good reason exists. The giving or absence of notice to sue, before a suit is

instituted is a relevant consideration in awarding costs. This is a circumstance in which quite

apart from misconduct, costs can be refused to a successful party."

10
In re Payless Car Hire and Tours [2015] eKLR Para 4
11
Jasbir Sign Rai & 3 others v Tarclochan Signh Rai & 4 others [2014] eKLR
12
Ibid 10, WINDING UP CAUSE NO. 19 OF 2011
13
Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Evrest Enterprises Limited [2014] eKLR at Paragraph 5

4
 b. Court Has Discretion to Deprive Successful Party of Costs

Notwithstanding the general principle that costs shall be awarded to the successful party, the

court has the discretion to deprive successful party the costs. Hon. JKuloba authoritatively

states as follows: -

"The law of costs as it is understood by courts in Kenya, is this, that where a plaintiff comes to

enforce a legal right, and there has been no misconduct on his part-no omission or neglect,

and no vexatious or oppressive conduct is attributed to him, which would induce the court to

deprive him of his costs-the court has no discretion and cannot take away the plaintiffs right to

costs. If the defendant, however innocently, has infringed a legal right of the plaintiff, the

plaintiff is entitled to enforce his legal right and in the absence of any reason such as

misconduct, is entitled to the costs of the suit as a matter, of course14”

Therefore, it is a settled principle that a successful litigant is entitled to receive costs, unless

there are special circumstances that give the court discretion to deny such party. To deny a

defendant costs, it is mandatory to show that he was guilty of a conduct which induced the

Plaintiff to bring the action and without it would probably not have been brought. One of the

test according to Kuloba J., is to ask whether; the Defendant’s conduct was such as to encourage

the Plaintiff to believe that he had a good cause of action?15

Consequently, a successful Defendant has a legitimate expectation, in the absence of special

circumstances, of obtaining an order of payment of his costs by the plaintiff, but he has no right

to costs until the court awards them since the court has the absolute and unfettered discretion

to award costs or not. An upshot of the same is that a successful litigant may be deprived of

their costs in the discretion of the trial court if some grounds can be shown, for example, any

misconduct or failure of that party occasioning expense, inconveniences or delay to the

14
, Ibid 1 at 101
15
Ibid

5
opposite party16. Nonetheless, a mere opinion of the court that a successful party did not behave

well is itself not a sufficient ground to deprive such party their costs of the suit. There must be

something to sustain a charge that the successful party did something likely to cause much

unnecessary delay and expenses, or something illegitimate in relation to the suit17. Where costs

are denied to a successful party and the court or the judge fails to give reasons, an appellate

court will not interfere if there is no evidence that the discretion was exercised on wrong

principles or non-judiciously18.

c. Courts Should Be Keen to Save Costs

The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act of Kenya is to facilitate the just,

expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of the civil disputes governed by the Act19.

In order to achieve that objective, the court has the duty to handle all matters presented before

it for the purpose of attaining the following aims— the just determination of the proceedings;

the efficient disposal of the business of the Court; the efficient use of the available judicial and

administrative resources; the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all other proceedings in

the Court, at a cost affordable to the respective parties; and the use of suitable technology20

In Karuturu Networks Ltd & another vs. Dally Figgis Advocates21it was held that:

“The application of the overriding objective principle does not operate to uproot the

established principles and procedures but to embolden the court to be guided by a broad sense

of justice and fairness and that in interpreting the law or rules made there under, the court is

under a duty to ensure that the application or interpretation being given to any rule will

facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of appeals. In the case

16
Kohil and Others v Bachulal Popatal, [ 1964] EA 219 at 235
17
Sir Barclay Nihil P in Shankerdass Mayer and four others v Trustees of the Rahimtulla Lalji Hirji Charitable
Trust (1955) 22 EACA 18 at 21
18
Chesoni J in GM Dodhia v Jos Hansen Soehne (EA) Ltd, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Civil Appeal No45
of 1978
19
Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act, CAP 21
20
Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, CAP 21
21
Nairobi Court of Appeal CA NO. 293/2009

6
of Meru Farmers’ Co-operative Union versus Suleiman,22 the Court found that in addressing

the issue of securing costs for any party, Courts should be extremely anxious to ensure that the

due administration of justice does not cause unnecessary expenses. If in the course of action,

which either litigant chooses to adopt, would result in unnecessary expenses, the Court should

be zealous to ensure that course of action is not open. A Court should, above all, be most careful

to ensure that it should not itself be used as a tool to incur unnecessary expenses where it is

satisfied that such expense is unnecessary. It is also agreed that a court exists for the purpose

of doing justice to the inhabitants of the country, and a Judge does justice to both parties by

saving unnecessary costs23.

d. Appeals regarding costs only lie where there is explicit evidence of non-

consideration of facts

As a principle, an appeal against an order of costs will only lie where the evidence on the record

supports an allegation in the appeal that the judge in the lower court did not correctly apprehend

the facts in making the order appealed against24. Therefore, where a judge has expressed his

discretion on matters of costs, the courts of superior jurisdiction have no power to overrule the

exercise of that discretion, unless the sitting judge did not base his discretion in clearly

stipulated principles. The principle is fortified by the case of Mbogo Vs Shah (1968) EA 93,

where it was held that a court of Appeal should not interfere with the exercise of discretion of

a Judge unless it is satisfied that he misdirected himself in some matter and as a result arrived

at a wrong decision, unless it is manifest from the case as a whole that the Judge was clearly

wrong in the exercise of his discretion and that as a result there has been an injustice. Thus,

where a discretion as to costs has been exercised by a judge, his decision is unimpeachable

22
No. (2) [1966] EA 442 at 443-444
23
Duffus Ag in Ibid, at 444
24
Hamilton, J, in Allibhai Bahnji v Essa Thawer [ 1911- 12] 4KLR 59 at 61

7
unless he can be shown to have taken into consideration matters which are irrelevant to the

issue in the case, or non-existent25. An appeal will only be entertained from the exercise of

discretion as to costs where the appellate court is satisfied that the lower court applied a wrong

principle of law26.

e. No interests on costs if there is no express order

Where there is no express court order that interest is to be paid on the costs, such interest cannot

be claimed. Section 27(2) of the Act provides that, 2)

“The court or judge may give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen per cent per

annum, and such interest shall be added to the costs and shall be recoverable as such.”

Therefore, by dint of that section, interests on costs are a discretionary power of the judge.

Therefore, costs will not carry interest without special order27. In the case of, Jane Wanjiku

Wambu v Anthony Kigamba Hato & 3 others [2017] eKLR29the court held that like interest on

damages, the Trial Court has a wide latitude to award interest on costs. However, there is no

rule of thumb that a successful litigant who has been awarded costs must get interest on those

costs. Indeed, the decisional principle in our jurisdiction seems to run in the opposite direction:

it is not normal to award interest on costs. Similarly, courts have argued that they have power

to award interest on costs.28.”

f. A defendant has no rights to costs upon the plaintiff’s withdrawal unless court

orders

Where a plaintiff withdraws or discontinues his or her case, the defendant has no right to costs

unless the court has in its discretion made an order of costs in his favor. The court has the

25
Ibid 2 at Pg. 104
26
Kohli and others v Bachulal Popatlal [1964] EA 230
27 29
Santana Fernades v Kara Arjan and Sons and Others [ 1962] EA 473
COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2016
28
Hasanali v City Motor Accessories Ltd & Others [1972] EA 423.

8
unfettered discretion in ordering terms as to costs upon discontinuance or withdrawal of an

action without leave29. So, costs for the defendant are not automatic after the discontinuance30.

g. Costs on set-off and counterclaim

Costs in both set-off and counterclaim are subject to the discretion of whether a special order

should be made to that effect. Where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant succeed in their

respective suits, that is, the Plaintiff in the original suit and the Defendant on the

Counterclaim, the Plaintiff will be entitled to the costs of the original suit while the Defendant

to the costs of the counterclaim31. However, this will be determined by the circumstances and

the nature of the particular case. Regarding a set-off, where the Defendant succeeds in

establishing a set-off equal to or exceeding the Plaintiff’s claim, the general rule is that in

absence of circumstances which court may deny the judgement of costs, entitled to an order of

costs. Where the defendant has also counterclaimed in the matter under the setoff, he is also

entitled to the costs of counterclaim. Also, courts have held that it is wrong to allow the Plaintiff

any costs on his claim where the sum of the set-off and counterclaim exceeds the amount

awarded in the judgment for the Plaintiff32. Therefore, where there is a counterclaim the amount

of costs to be given to the Defendant who counterclaimed is not to be determined as separate

action but a mere additional cost resulting from the counterclaim33. Hence in summary, in a

counterclaim the Defendant who raises a counterclaim is only entitled to those costs on the

counterclaim and not to obtain costs as if the counterclaim was a separate action34.

29
Order 25 rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
30
Crabble JA in Kohli and Others v Bachulal Popatlal [ 1964] EA219 at 230
31
Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure at p. 107
32
Kiska Ltd v De Angelis, [ 1969] EA 6
33
Ibid 32
34
AbdullahRahimtullah and 2 others v Francis Xavier D’Silva Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1967

9
 h. A Party entitled to an injunction is also entitled to the costs of obtaining it

As a general principle, a party who is entitled to an injunction is also entitled to the costs of

obtaining it. However, where a party asks too much, he may be deprived of the costs to which

he would otherwise have been entitled. The principle is that where there is a successful

application for injunction the order of costs shall be in the cause but for an unsuccessful

application, the Applicant will abide with the result of the case35. It has been held that an

unsuccessful application should attract costs against the Applicant, otherwise, costs should be

in the cause36.

Principles Guiding the Taxing officer in Taxation of Costs

Introduction
Taxation is an assessment of the fees which properly represents the work done. It may be

undertaken by a registrar, a district registrar, a deputy registrar and in their absence, by such

other as may be appointed by the Chief Justice. A bill of cost is a factual statement of services

rendered and disbursements made.37

The taxing officer is the person tasked with the responsibility of taxing the fees of advocates.

The court deprecates reference to the taxing officer with a deputy registrar or district registrar

or registrar of the court or any other registrar appointed by the Chief Justice.38

A bill of costs is an itemized account reflecting all the charges, including fees and

disbursements made by an advocate. Bill of costs is required to be drafted in accordance with

the rules. The bill of costs should indicate the date on which the work was done, the item in

35
Cotran, J, in Kibutiri v Kenya Shell Ltd, High Court Civil Case No, 3398 of 1980
36
Mwamba Rugby Football Club v Kenya Rugby Football Union, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Civil case
number 556 of 1981
37
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 pg 111
38
Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16, Paragraph 10

10
respect of which costs are charged (which items must be listed in chronological order, and

should be numbered), the number of folios or pages involved, and the period of time spent in

relation to each item, a precise description of each item and fees for each item, charged in

accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.39

His jurisdiction in Kenya is to tax a bill and then sign to a certificate of taxation. There is no

power vested in a taxing officer to award costs. He is empowered only to disallow or allow

costs and not to award them.42

The court cannot interfere with the taxing officers’ decision on taxation unless it is shown that

either the decision was based on an error of principle, or the fee awarded was manifestly

excessive as to justify an interference that it was based on an error of principle. 40 It would

obviously be an error of principle to take into account irrelevant factors or to omit to consider

relevant factors.

Taxation of costs as a judicial function is to be conducted regularly, on the basis of rational

criteria which are clearly expressed for the parties to perceive with ease. Regularity in this

respect cannot be achieved without upholding fairness as between the parties. The taxing

officer should avoid the possibility of unjust enrichment for any party and ought to refuse any

claim that tends to be usurious.41

It is evident that the principles of taxation are of every importance to the taxing officer to enable

him to conduct the process smoothly and to guide him in the exercising of his discretion powers.

One therefore cannot talk about the discretion powers of the taxing officer without talking about

the principles that govern him or her. To be emphasized therefore, is that the discretion of the

39
Kenya Laws Online_Kenya civil procedure law: Post litigation proceedings. Available at:
https://kenyalawsonline.blogspot.com last accessed on June 20, 2018 at 11:48 am. 42
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 pg 121.
40
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
41
Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6others (2006) eKLR

11
taxing officer is only so far as the principles allow and if a decision is made at the expense of

the said principles, the aggrieved party can appeal the decision to court for the decision to be

set aside and for the officer to be required to re-tax the bill of costs.

There are two bases on which costs may be taxed; Standard basis and Indemnity basis. Standard

basis is where the court allows a reasonable amount for all costs where reasonable and any

doubt as to whether costs were reasonable in quantum shall be resolved in favour of the paying

party. 42 Indemnity basis on the other hand are costs allowed by court except those of

unreasonably incurred and any doubts as to whether costs reasonably incurred or reasonable in

question shall be resolved in favour of the receiving party.43

This paper will therefore address the principles that guide the taxing officer and the court in

exercising their discretion on matters concerning fees. This paper will discuss the principles of

discretion both in Party-to-Party costs and Advocate-client costs.

The Taxation Process

Within 12 months from the date on which the proceedings are finally concluded, the receiving

party shall file a Bill of Costs which should list the costs payable by the paying party. The party

ordered to pay costs requires the receiving party to have the bill taxed by the taxing officer of

the court. The paying party is more often than not, the losing party or the judgment debtor. The

Bill of Costs shall be in the form prescribed under Schedule VI of the Advocates

(Remuneration) Order. The receiving party must draw the bill of costs and later request a date

for taxation from the taxing officer.44 No addition or alteration shall be made in a bill of costs

by the party submitting the same after the bill has been lodged for taxation, except by consent

of the parties, or by permission or direction of the court or taxing officer.45 A hearing date will

42
Kenya Laws Online_Kenya civil procedure law: Post litigation proceedings. Available at:
https://kenyalawsonline.blogspot.com last accessed on June 19, 2018 at 11:48 am.
43
ibid
44
ibid
45
Paragraph 71, Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16

12
then be fixed, purposed for the taxation of the Bill of Costs referred to as the Taxation hearing

date. This is usually not less than five days after the filing date of the Bill of Costs. After such

date has been allocated, a notice of taxation is to be served on all parties entitled to attend the

hearing by the registrar, indicating when and where the taxation will occur, accompanied by a

copy of the bill of costs.46

All parties are entitled to be present at the taxation, and to put arguments to the taxing officer

in favour of or against the charges being taxed. The taxing officer should not proceed to the

taxation of any bill of costs unless he is satisfied that the party liable to pay has received due

notice as to the time and place of such taxation, together with notice that he is entitled to be

present. The taxing officer shall however have power to proceed to taxation ex parte in default

of appearance of either or both parties or their advocates, and to limit or extend the time for

any proceedings before him, and for proper cause to adjourn the hearing of any taxation from

time to time.47

If the paying party wishes to object to the Bill of costs, he must file a Notice of Dispute at least

7days before the Taxation hearing date. During the Taxation hearing process, the advocate of

the liable party or paying party, brings to the attention of the taxing officer all items that in his

opinion should not appear on such account. 48 For example he may argue that unnecessary

phone calls were made. The advocate who submitted the Bill of costs must then explain to the

taxing officer why those telephone calls were made and furnish proof thereof by notes of

telephone conversations on file. When the taxation of the bill is finalized, the taxation officer

allocates the amount that is payable in terms of the taxed bill of costs, puts his stamp on it and

signs it.49

46
Paragraph 72, Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16
47
ibid Paragraph 76
48
Paragraph 74 and 74A, Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16.
49
Kenya Laws Online_Kenya civil procedure law: Post litigation proceedings. Available at:
https://kenyalawsonline.blogspot.com last accessed on June 19, 2018 at 1:30 pm.

13
The Taxing Officer shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including but not limited

to:50

a) Any payment of money into court and the amount of such payment;

b) The conduct of all parties, including conduct before and during the proceedings;

c) The parties’ conduct in relation to any attempt to resolve the matter through mediation

or any other form of dispute resolution;

d) The extent to which parties followed the applicable relevant pre-action protocol or

practice directions issued by the Registrar; and

e) The complexity of the cause or matter and the difficulty and novelty of the questions

involved.

Any party not satisfied with the amount of costs granted by the taxing Registrar may file an

application for a review by a Judge of the High Court in chambers within 14days after the

taxing officer’s decision. If the court considers that the decision of the officer discloses errors

of principle, the normal practice is to remit it back to the taxing officer for reassessment unless

the judge is satisfied that the error cannot materially have affected the assessment.51 The court

is not entitled to upset taxation because in its opinion the amount awarded was high. The court

can direct the taxing officer with appropriate directions on how it should go about the taxation

where it proves error in principle. Court must permit itself after viewing the case to interfere

with the discretion of the taxing master.52 Both the taxing officer and the judge owe a duty to

the public to see that costs are not allowed to rise to such a level as to deprive off access to the

courts all but the wealthy.56 They also bear in mind that a successful litigant ought fairly to be

50
Kenya Laws Online_Kenya civil procedure law: Post litigation proceedings. Available at:
https://kenyalawsonline.blogspot.com last accessed on June 19, 2018 at 7:35pm.
51
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
52
John Maina Mburu T/A John Maina Mburu & Co. Advocates v George Gitau Munne (sued as Administrator
of the Estate of Samuel Gitau Munene) and 3 others [2015] eKLR 56 Khatijabai Jiwa Hashan v Zainab Daughter
of Chandu Nansi

14
reimbursed the costs he has had to incur. The general level of the remuneration of advocates

must be such as to attract worthy recruits to an honorable profession.53

Advocate-client costs

Advocate-client costs are costs which are payable by the client to his advocate and where such

costs are payable by the client to his advocate. The costs must be payable out of funds belonging

in its entirety to that party and is on a full indemnity basis. Where the bill of costs is between

an advocate and his own client, the advocate is entitled to charge for all work performed by

him in the proper conduct of his clients instructions.

Taxing officer’s discretion

The use of discretion must not be exercised perfunctorily and as a mere formality. It is necessary

for the taxing officer to specify clearly and candidly how she had exercised her discretion since

discretion as an aspect of judicial decision-making is to be guided by principles, the elements

of which are guided by principles, the elements of which are clearly stated and which are logical

and conscientiously conceived. 54 The officer ought to describe accurately the nature of the

responsibility which has fallen upon counsel.

The taxing officer in exercising his or her discretion to increase or decrease cost must first set

out the basic fee before venturing to consider whether to increase or reduce it. This is to be

done before they give reasons for the increment or reduction.55 In the case of Opa Pharmacy

Ltd. vs. Howse & Mcgeorge Ltd56the taxing officer failed to give reasons for doubling of the

instruction fees. This denied the paying party a reason for his choice of figure for it is

impossible to say what was in the taxing officer’s mind. Had he given the reasons why he

doubled the fees, it would be clear of the reasons for the inflation thereby avoiding appeals to

53
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 1984
54
Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others (2006) eKLR
55
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah &Others [2002] 1 EA 64
56
Opa Pharmacy Ltd. vs. Howse & Mcgeorge Ltd Kampala HCMA No. 13 of 1970 (HCU) [1972] EA 233

15
the courts. The judge in this case held that, failure to give any reason for the choice amounts to

an arbitrary determination in the figure and is not a judicial exercise of one’s discretion.

Entering the instruction fees

Instruction fee is an independent and static item hence is charged only once. It is not affected

or determined by the stage the suit has reached. The full instruction fees to defend a suit are

earned the moment a defense has been filed and the subsequent progress of the matter is

irrelevant to that item of fees.57

Complexity of issues

The taxing officer should clearly identify any elements of complexity in the issues before the

court and in this regard should revert to the perception and mode of analysis and determination

adopted by the trial judge. 58 He should state clearly the nature of any novel matter in the

proceedings.59

The responsibility entrusted to counsel if it is ordinary and calls for nothing but normal

diligence, such as attending the work of a professional in any field, then there is nothing novel

in the proceedings that would justify any special allowance in costs. The advocate must indicate

that the case was a time-consuming, research involving or skill engaging activities as to justify

an enhanced award of instruction fees.60

The mere fact that the defendant does research before filing a defence and then puts a defence

informed of such research is not necessarily indicative of the complexity of the matter as it may

well be indicative of the advocate’s unfamiliarity with basic principles of law and such

unfamiliarity should not be turned into an advantage against the adversary. 61 An advocate

57
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
58
Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others (2006) eKLR
59
ibid
60
ibid
61
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64

16
cannot therefore claim that the matter was a complex matter because of the research done. It is

upon the taxing officer to rule as to whether the case was a complex one or not.

The learned judge, Ojwang’ J (as he then was) in Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and

2Others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6Others62was keen to note that private law claims do

not fall in the same class as public law claims such as those in judicial review, constitutional

applications and public electoral matters. Such matters are in a class of their own and the

instructions fees allowable in respect of them should not, in principle be extrapolated from the

practices obtaining in the private law domain which may involve business claims and profit

calculations.

Take into account relevant factors arising from the case

According to the Advocates (Remuneration) Order63 come of the relevant factors to take into

account include the nature and importance of the case or matter, the amount or value of the

subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and

any discretion by the trial judge. Not all the factors may exist in any given case and it is

therefore open to the taxing officer to consider only such factors as may exist in the actual case

before him. It would be an error of principle to take into account irrelevant factors or to omit

to consider relevant.64

The value of the subject matter for the purposes of taxation of a bill of cost ought to be

determined from the pleadings, judgment and settlement but if the same is not so

ascertainable the taxing officer is entitled to use his discretion to assess such instruction fee as

he considers just, taking into account amongst other matters the nature and the importance of

the case.65

62
Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others (2006) eKLR
63
Shedule VI Clause 1, Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16 of 2014
64
First American Bank of Kenya vs. Shah &Others [2002] 1 EA 64
65
Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999 [2002] 1 EA 92

17
Volume of documents read during research
To receive costs for documents that were used in the course of the case, the advocate must

indicate that there is a great volume of crucial documents which the advocate needed to refer

to prosecute their case successfully.66

Test of Comparability and consistency

The taxing office should as far as possible apply the test of comparability. The officer should

endeavour to achieve objectivity when considering ill-defined criteria such as public policy,

interests affected, importance of the matter to the parties and importance of the matter to the

public. There must be consistency in the awards made in that one cases’ decision can be

determined from another previous one.67 Most importantly in the taxation of costs is that there

should be consistency so far as that is possible, allowing for the fact that no two cases are alike.

So far as is humanly possible, awards on costs should be consistent.68

Consider each case on its own merit

This principle is not in contrast with the one discussed above. In issues with similar subject

matters and values, the fees decided on should not fall far from each other. Every case must be

decided on its own merit and in every variable degree, the value of the suit property may be

taken into account.

Reasonableness

In exercising his discretion, the Taxing officer should be guided by the principle of

reasonableness. This has been explained best by the learned judge (as he then was) Mwera J in

66
John Maina Mburu T/A John Maina Mburu & Co. Advocates v George Gitau Munne (sued as Administrator of
the Estate of Samuel Gitau Munene) & 3 others [2015] eKLR
67
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 1984
68
Mayers and Another v Hamilton and others [1975] EA 13 at 14.

18
the case of Danson Mutuku Muema vs. Julius Muthoka Muema & Others69 an amount awarded

being ten times the sum provided for was not reasonable and found that it was definitely

excessive as opposed to three or four times. Contrary to this ruling, the court of appeal in the

case of Butt and another vs. Sifuna t/a Sifuna & Company Advocates70 while appreciating that

the basic instructions fees was Kshs. 9,000/= in a winding up petition nevertheless awarded

Kshs. 150,000/= in respect of instruction fees, which is 17 times the basic instructions fees.

Borrowing from this, the taxing officer should exercise reasonableness when increasing or

reducing the fees payable to advocates noting to give reasons for their actions.

Avoidance of unjust enrichment

Costs should not be allowed to rise to such levels as to confine access to court to the wealthy.71

The taxation of advocates’ instruction fees is to seek no more and no less than reasonable

compensation for professional work done.72 The taxation of advocates’ instruction fees should

avoid any prospect of unjust enrichment, for any particular party or parties. It is in public

interest that costs be kept to a reasonable level so that justice is not put beyond the reach of

poor litigants.

The amount awarded should be reasonable and not excessive in the circumstances of the case.

If any of the facts alleged in the bill are shown to be untrue for example if it is shown that a

particular service charged for has not been made, the relevant item in the bill will be taxed off.73

If an advocate makes obviously excessive claims as regards instructions and supports them by

misleading particulars, the taxing officer should deal drastically with him or her.74

69
Danson Mutuku Muema vs. Julius Muthoka Muema & Others Machakos High Court Appeal No. 6 of 1991
70
Butt and another vs. Sifuna t/a Sifuna & Company Advocates civil appeal no. 45 of 2005 [2009] eKLR 427

71
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 1984
72
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 1984
73
Bhagwanji Premchand and others v JM Gomes and others (1956) 23 EACA 296 at 297
74
Taj Doen v Dobrisklonsky and Bhalla and Thakore [1957] EA 379 at 381-382

19
Taxation is based on experience and opinion and not mathematics

The taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise. A taxing officer does not arrive at a figure

by multiplying the scale fee, but places what he considers a fair value upon the work and

responsibility involved.75 It is a matter entirely based on opinion and experience.76 A court will

not therefore interfere with the award of a taxing officer, particularly where he is an officer of

great experience, merely because it thinks the award so high or so low as to amount to an

injustice to one party or the other. The taxing officer being the major player of the taxation

process, his discretion is mainly considered. Great experience acquired over time is an added

advantage.

Operate within his or her authority

The taxing officer whilst taxing the Bill of Costs is carrying out his function as such only. The

officer is an officer of the Superior court appointed to tax bills of costs.77 He or she is therefore

not required to overstep his authority or his authority be influenced.

Agreement of the parties

In determining costs, the taxing officer should consider the agreement between the advocate

and the client. Agreed fees by parties that are not in dispute are not subject or open to be referred

to taxation.78 Where there is an agreement, the costs of an advocate shall not be taxed79 unless

there is fraud, illegality and/or coercion in the agreement. If two parties willingly agree to

conceive an idea and the same is put into writing, signed, accepted and executed by the parties,

then the court can only be called to intervene in distinct situations.80

75
Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo Lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] eKLR
76
Republic vs. Ministry of Agriculture and 2 others Ex parte Muchiri W’njuguna & 6 others (2006) eKLR
77
Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999 [2002] 1 EA 92
78
John Maina Mburu T/A John Maina Mburu & Co. Advocates v George Gitau Munne (sued as Administrator of
the Estate of Samuel Gitau Munene) and 3 others [2015] eKLR.
79
Section 45(6) Advocates Act Cap 16.
80
D. N. Njogu and Co. Advocates v NBK (2007) eKLR

20
Directions from courts

At any time after the bill of costs has been filed, and before the suit has been set down for

hearing, any party to the suit may take out summons for directions as to whether such bills

should be taxed by the taxing officer before the suit is heard.81 Taxation can occur at whatever

stage of the proceedings provided that the court allows it.

Taxing officer to be guided by the laws of taxation

The laws to guide taxation are but not limited to, the Advocates Act,82 the Advocates

(Remuneration) Act,83 the Civil Procedure Act84 and the Civil Procedure Rules.85

Change of advocates or where more than one advocates work on one case

There is nothing wrong with having more than one advocate acting on a case as long as one has

the money to cater for the fees. Where there is a change of advocate, the present advocate on

record lodges his client’s bill and annex thereto a separate bill of the former advocate of the

party for the past services rendered and for disbursements sought to be charged for where

rendered or made.86

Wrong dates on a bill of costs are not fatal to taxation

Work in connection with the preparation of a case or an appeal is not done on any particular

day, but over a period of days hence the date given for such items as perusing the record, taking

instructions, making research in the law and so forth must necessarily present an approximate.87

Misdating of a bill of costs therefore cannot be used as a reason by the taxing master for

reduction of costs.

81
Section 49(d) Advocates Act Cap 16.
82
Advocates Act Cap 16, 2014.
83
ibid
84
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21.
85
Civil Procedure Rules, Cap 21 (Subsidiary Legislation) 2010.
86
Edward Sarget v Sheikh Brothers Ltd & others, Supreme Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Civil Case No. 481 of 1958
87
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 1984

21
Ordering advocates to pay -A taxing officer can order an advocate to pay unnecessary or

improper expenses to which he has put any party.88

Reimbursement of the advocate -A successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the

costs he had to incur in the case. Where responsibility borne by advocates is taken by the

advocate, its nature is to be specified.

PARTY TO PARTY COSTS

A successful litigant is entitled to be reimbursed sums of money reasonably paid by him to his

advocate in the course of litigation. These are complete indemnity but they are only given in

the nature of an indemnity to the person entitled to them. In dealing with Party to party costs,

the taxing officer is also guided by principles to exercise his discretion. These include;

a) Discretion of the taxing officer in disputed items

A claiming party can produce vouchers to prove such payment made to his advocate that he is

claiming from the losing party. If the taxing officer is satisfied that such amounts were

reasonable for the item of work performed, then the claiming party will be allowed such amount

for taxation. If the successful litigant cannot produce the vouchers but the taxing officer is

satisfied that some amount was properly paid in respect of the item, it is for the taxing officer

to use his discretion.89 Same procedure applies for disputed items.

b) The taxing officer taxes the bill according to the law

Costs are awarded by the court to the winning party according to the quantum requested by the

parties and on to the orders of the court. 90 The officer is concerned with the taxation of a

litigant’s costs as authorized by the order of the court.91 His function is to interpret the order of

88
MF Patel, Taxing officer in SM Akram v Ata-Ul-Haq
89
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015
90
Nyamogo &Nyamogo Advocates v Pan Africa Insurance Company Limited & another[2016]
91
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 pp 121

22
the court, not to make one for the parties.92 Once the court has made the order his function is

to tax costs accordingly.93

c) The taxing officer has no jurisdiction to award costs

There is no power vested on the taxing officer to award costs. The costs are awarded by the

court and it is on the taxing officer only to allow or disallow costs. 94 This is mainly because

these costs are awarded to the parties by the court during the proceedings of the case. 95 Taxation

of costs whether those costs are between party and party or between advocate and client is a

special jurisdiction reserved to the taxing officer by the Advocates (Remuneration)

Order.96

d) The taxing officer has power to grant any order he or she deems fit and necessary

For purposes of any proceedings before him, the taxing officer shall have power and

authority to summon and examine witnesses, to administer oaths, to direct the production of

books, papers and documents and to direct and adopt all such other proceedings as may be

necessary for the determination of any matter in dispute before him.97

e) Take into account joinder of issues

Take into account the circumstances that more than one cause of action could have been

conveniently litigated in one suit.98 He may disallow or refuse to allow costs for a suit which

would have been litigated in another previous suit.

92
ibid
93
Hilda Frances Nevill v Gerald Edward Nevill, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Divorce Cause No. 47 of 1964
94
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 p 121
95
Nyamogo &Nyamogo Advocates v Pan Africa Insurance Company Limited & another[2016]
96
Donholm Rahisi Stores (firm) v EA Portland Cement Ltd [2005] eKLR
97
Paragraph 13A, Advocate (Remuneration) Order Cap 16
98
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 p 122

23
 f) Necessity of costs to the attainment of justice

The taxing officer may allow all costs, charges and expenses that appear to him to have been

necessary for the attainment of justice or for defending the rights of any party.99 In using his

discretion, a taxing officer may allow such costs appearing to him to have been necessary or

proper for the attainment of justice.100

g) Consider the interests of the party

The taxing officer must carefully consider the interests of the parties. This mainly applies in

cases where there are two or more plaintiffs or defendants, where the taxing officer has to

consider the fact that some plaintiffs or defendants might have a greater interest than others.101

Conclusion

Gathered from the above paper is that the taxing officer as the official person tasked with the

responsibility of taxing bill of costs, must be guided with taxation principles while exercising

his discretion. The court is not to interfere and where an applicant goes to court to challenge

the action of the taxing officer, the court in making its decision will consider whether the taxing

officer errored in principle or not. The court will then highlight this issue and return

the issue to the same taxing officer for re-taxation.

99
Paragraph 16 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order Cap 16
100
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 p 122
101
Richard Kuloba, “Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure” lawAfrica 2nd edition 2015 p 135

24
Draft Bill of Costs

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI

CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 20 .

MDOSICA………………………………………………….…………………....PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NYUMBA OWING FINANCIERS COMPANY LIMITED…………………DEFENDANT

THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

ITEM DATE PARTICULARS OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT

RENDERED TAXED OFF

1. 1/3/2016 Instructions to institute proceedings for Kshs. 650,000/=

breach of contract against Nyumba
owing financiers company limited
seeking for orders of;

a.) General damages

b.) Permanent injunction
c.) Declaration that the
defendant has no right to
alter the loan agreement
2. 1/3/2016 Fees for getting up and preparing for Kshs. 216,666/=
trial

3. 1/4/2016 Towards drawing notice of Kshs. 1,100/=

appointment of advocates (3folios)

4. 1/4/2016 Towards making 3 copies of notice of Kshs. 225/=

appointment of advocates

5. 1/4/2016 Kshs. 1,700/=

Towards drawing a Plaint (8 folios)

6. 1/4/2016 Towards making 3 copies of plaint Kshs. 600/=

7. 1/4/2016 Towards drawing a verifying affidavit Kshs. 1,100/=

(3 folios)

25
8. 1/4/2016 Towards making 3 copies of verifying Kshs. 225/=
affidavit

9. 1/4/2016 Towards drawing witness statement of Kshs. 720/=

Mr. Mdosi (4 folios)

10. 1/4/2016 Towards making 3 copies of witness Kshs. 300/=

statement

11. 14/6/2015 Towards drawing list and bundle of Kshs. 720/=

documents (4 folios)

12. 14/6/2015 Towards making 3 copies of list and Kshs. 300/=

bundle of documents

13. 2/4/2016 Serving defendant with plaint, verifying Kshs. 1400/=

affidavit, witness statement and list of
documents

14. 20/4/2016 Towards receiving and perusing Kshs. 350/=

defendants statement of defence (7
folios)

15. 1/5/2016 Towards attending Court for pre-trial Kshs. 4,600/=

(2 hours)

16. 8/5/2016 Taking instructions to draw notice of Kshs. 5,000/=

motion application

17. 10/5/2016 Towards drawing notice of motion Kshs. 1,100/=

application (4 folios)

18. 10/5/2016 Towards making 3 copies of Kshs. 300/=

Application

19. 12/5/2016 Towards serving the Application on Kshs. 1,400/=

Defendants

15/5/2016 Towards receiving and perusing Kshs. 150/=

20. grounds of opposition from
respondents (3 folios)

21. 26/5/2016 Towards attending court for a mention Kshs. 1,100/=

26
27
22. 26/5/2016 Towards attending court for hearing of Kshs. 5,000/=
application

23. 30/8/2016 Towards drawing submissions (10 Kshs.1,800/=

folios)

24. 30/8/2016 Towards making 3 copies of Kshs. 750/=

submissions

25. 2/9/2016 Towards serving submissions on Kshs. 1,400/=

defendant

5/9/2016 Towards receiving and perusing Kshs. 750/=

26. submissions from the defendant (15
folios)

27. 10/10/2016 Towards attending court for judgment Kshs. 2,300/=

(1 hour)

SUB-TOTAL Kshs. 901,056/=

DISBURSEMENTS

28. 1/4/2016 Transport to Court for filing Kshs. 500/=

29. 1/4/2016 Court filing fees for plaint, verifying Kshs. 1,500/=
affidavit, witness statement and list of
documents

30. 1/5/2016 Transport to attend Court for Pre-trial Kshs. 400/=

31. 1/5/2016 Transport to attend Court for mention Kshs. 380/=

32. 30/8/2016 Filing of submissions Kshs. 300/=

33. 30/8/2016 Court filing fees for submissions Kshs. 150/=

34. 10/10/2016 Transport to attend Court for judgment Kshs. 250/=

35. 11/5/2016 Transport to court for filing of notice of Kshs. 500/=

motion application

36. 11/5/2016 Court fees for filing notice of motion Kshs. 60/=
application

28
29
 GRAND TOTAL Kshs. 905,096/=

Amount charged; Kshs. 905,096/=

Amount taxed off; Kshs. .

Bill of costs taxed at; Kshs. .

Dated at Nairobi This..…Day of…………….…..20…..

AKILI & COMPANY

Advocates for the Plaintiff

Drawn & Filed By:

Akili & Company

Advocates

Kalioki House, 1st Floor

Omengo Street, P.O.

Box 27-100,

NAIROBI.

To Be Served Upon

Nyumba owing financiers company limited

P.O Box 2394 NAIROBI.

30
 REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI

CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 20 .

MDOSICA………………………………………………….…………………....PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NYUMBA OWING FINANCIERS COMPANY LIMITED…………………DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF TAXATION

TAKE NOTICE that the Bill of costs in the above case lodged in the High court by the Plaintiff for taxation
will be taxed/taken on the………………….day of ………………20…. at 9:00am. A copy of the Bill of costs is
attached hereto for your case.

Dated at Nairobi This …… Day of …………..………….… 20…..

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

MILIMANI HIGH COURT

31
32