Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Kenya Orient Insurance Limited [2023] KEHC 26477 (KLR)

Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates v Kenya Orient Insurance Limited (Miscellaneous Application 67 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 26477 (KLR) (13 December 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26477 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Embu

Miscellaneous Application 67 of 2019

LM Njuguna, J

December 13, 2023

Between

Muri Mwaniki & Wamiti Advocates

Applicant

and

Kenya Orient Insurance Limited

Respondent

Ruling

1. The applicant has filed a notice of motion dated March 23, 2023 seeking the following orders:a.That the honourable court be pleased to review the ruling and order of the Honourable J.A. Otieno delivered on February 27, 2023 taxing the applicant’s bill of costs dated August 13, 2019 at Kshs. 474,199/= to take into account the sum of Kshs. 116,980/= acknowledged in the bill of costs as received by the applicant from the respondent as deposit and the bill of costs be accordingly taxed at Kshs. 357,219/=; andb.Costs of the application be provided for.

2. A ruling on bill of costs dated 13th August 2019 was delivered on 13th September 2021. Vide chamber summons dated August 5, 2022, the applicant sought orders to set aside the ruling of the Deputy Registrar rendered on September 13, 2021. The chamber summons and the supporting affidavit thereof was considered and this court rendered its ruling on December 19, 2022 with orders that the bill of costs be sent back to the taxing master to be taxed afresh. Consequently, the taxing officer re-taxed the bill of costs and issued a ruling dated February 27, 2023 considering the recommendations of this court and taxed the bill of costs at Kshs. 474,199/=. This last ruling is the subject of the application herein.

3. In its application, the applicant seeks review on the grounds that there is an error on the face of the ruling dated February 27, 2023, particularly that the taxed amount is not less the deposit paid by the respondent to the applicant as indicated in the bill of costs. It is its averment that the amount should be Kshs. 357,219/= being the taxed amount less deposit already paid.

4. The application is unopposed.

5. From the foregoing, the issue for determination whether his court can grant the orders sought.

6. Firstly, the subject of the review sought is the ruling the dated 27th February 2023 by the Deputy Registrar as the taxing master. Under rule 10 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO), a Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the High Court is a taxing officer for purposes of taxation of bills under the ARO. A Judge of the High Court cannot therefore sit as a taxing master, which is why this court sent the bill of costs back to the taxing master for re-taxation. This court, therefore, bears the jurisdiction to review the orders sought, given that the impugned orders were granted following an order of this court.

7. Since the initial taxation of the bill of costs dated 13th August 2019, item 140 was not addressed by the taxing master. It indicates a deposit already paid and that should be deducted from the gross total.

8. The bill is hereby remitted back to the Taxing master to interrogate whether the amount of Kshs. 116,980/= was paid and if so, the same to be taken into account.

9. It is so ordered.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023. L. NJUGUNAJUDGE