Manilal and Company v Nurmohamed and Co Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955) [1955] EACA 309 (1 January 1955)

## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA

Before SIR BARCLAY NIHILL (President), SIR NEWNHAM WORLEY (Vice-President) and MACDUFF, J. (Kenya)

## MANILAL & COMPANY, Appellants (Original Plaintiffs)

## (1) A. H. NURMOHAMED & CO. LTD. (2) THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD., Respondents (Original Defendants) Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955

(Appeal from the decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya, Mayers, J.)

Appeal—Appeal against order of Supreme Court refusing to vary decision of Taxing Master—Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court, rule $7$ (2)—Incompetency of appeal.

A Judge of the Supreme Court refused to vary the decision of a taxing master. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from his order was refused by the said Judge. The appellants appealed.

Rule 7 (2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court provides: "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Judge upon any objection referred to such Judge under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this rule may, with leave of the Judge, but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa".

Held (21-7-55).—There being no provision in the municipal law of Kenya for an appeal to the Court of Appeal where leave to appeal has been refused by a Judge in an objection to him from a taxing master, the appeal was incompetent.

Appeal dismissed.

Appellants in person (by the proprietor of the appellant company).

Inamdar for first respondent.

Cleasby for second respondent.

JUDGMENT (delivered by Nihill (President)).—This appeal purports to be an appeal against an order of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya which refused to vary the decision of a taxing officer. The respondents have raised the preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent under rule 7 (2) of the Kenya Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court. This objection must be upheld.

The appellant applied to the Judge of the Supreme Court, who dismissed his appeal against the decision of the taxing officer, for leave to appeal to this Court and that application was dismissed. In view of the wording of rule 7 (2) of the above Rules of Court it is clear that no further appeal to this Court can lie. The decision, therefore, is that under the Municipal Law of Kenya no right of appeal on a matter such as this, where leave to appeal has been refused, is provided for. This appeal is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed with costs.