Baringo County ordered to pay lawyer Donald Kipkorir Sh17.5mn

November 2, 2017 4:18 pm
Shares
While directing the payment of the sum to KTK advocates on Thursday, Justice John Mativo dismissed an application filed by the County Government seeking to set aside the taxation of bills costs entered on 8 June 2017/FILE

, NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov 2 – The High Court has ordered Baringo County Government to pay a city law firm a whooping Sh17,570,907 for service rendered to the devolved government.

While directing the payment of the sum to KTK advocates on Thursday, Justice John Mativo dismissed an application filed by the County Government seeking to set aside the taxation of bills costs entered on 8 June 2017.

“In principle, cost are awarded, having regard to such factors as: – (a) the difficult and co0mplexity of the issues; (b) the length of trial; (c) value of the subject matter and (d) other factors which may affect the fairness of an award of costs,” the judge explained while granting an application by the law firm seeking reinstatement of the bill.

“The law obligates the taxing master to take into account the above principles,” he said.

The application by the County Government were strongly opposed by the KTK advocates firm lawyer Donald Kipkorir, on grounds that they were defective and did not meet the mandatory provisions of rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Act.

He said that his law firm represented the County Government and that the bill of costs was properly filed and taxed accordingly.

The lawyer did submit that the County wrongly filed its submissions at the Judicial Review Division as opposed to Constitutional and Human Rights Division.

The taxing master said the bill of costs was taxed in accordance with the law.

“The application before the court does not satisfy the criteria for setting aside the taxation judgment,” Kipkorir said.

He further submitted that given the complexity of the matter that was handled by his law firm, the taxing master did correctly enter judgment in his favor.

The scope of the applications requires the court be satisfied that the taxing master was clearly wrong before interfering with the decision of the deputy registrar, he said.

“The quantum of such costs is to be that reasonable to prosecute or defend the County in court,” he observed.

It is well established principle of review that the exercise of the taxing master’s discretion will not be interfered with unless it is found that he or she has not exercised his discretion properly.
The amount is to be paid at the court rates, since the taxation was entered.

GET TOP NEWS FOR THE DAY DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX

Shares

Latest Articles

News Podcasts

Most Viewed