Taxation — Rules of Court, Part XIV, rule 7 (1) — Objection to decision of taxing officer — High Instruction fee — Principles upon which Court will interfere with decision as to quantum — Whether taxing officer had manifestly acted upon wrong principles.
Case summary
A first appeal under a new Ordinance had caused the appellant's advocate considerable preparation on intricate and novel points of law, and was successful. The appellant submitted an instruction fee of Sh. 7,500 but the taxing officer taxed off Sh. 3,250. The respondent objected to the taxed figure of Sh. 4,250 as still excessively high and referred his objection before a judge as provided for by rule 7 (1) of Part XIV, Rules of Court.
HeId (5-8-55):
(1) The Court will not interfere with the discretion of a taxing officer on a question of quantuni unless it appears that the sum allowed is so large, having regard to the nature of the proceeding, that the Court is driven to the conclusion that the taxing officer must have acted upon a wrong principle. The Court will not interfere unless in an exceptional case.
(2) Merely because an instruction fee is taxed at a figure which appears to be extremely high and far higher than the Court itself would have allowed the Court will not automatically presume that the figure was arrived at upon wrong principles where there is nothing to show that this, was so.
(3) The taxing officer was well aware of the nature of the appeal from the record and the arguments presented to him and had a discretion to take into account the nature and importance of the cause or matter" and there was nothing to show and the Court was unable to say that the taxing officer had manifestly acted upon wrong principles in allowing so high a fee and would therefore not interfere.
Reference dismissed with costs.
Cases cited: Mohanial Kalyanjee v. M. M. Stores, (1950) 24 (1) K.L.R. 47 Couldrey for objector.
Noivrojee for Respondent.
