Patel v Patel and Others (C.C. 3-1931.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that the words 'For applications, notices of motion or chamber applications' in the Schedule of fees for instructions may refer to either a successful applicant or a successful respondent. A successful respondent who opposes a chamber application is entitled to recover fees for taking instructions to resist the application.
Outcome
Matter remitted to Deputy Registrar for taxation of the disputed item
Facts
Judgment was given for the plaintiff on 19 September 1931. Three months later, on 4 December 1931, the second defendant gave notice of motion to review the judgment, served on the plaintiff personally although his advocates remained on record. The application for review was dismissed with costs on 31 December 1931. When the plaintiff's advocate taxed his bill of costs, he included Shs. 50 for instructions to defend (oppose) the motion to review. The Deputy Registrar disallowed this item, ruling that the Schedule of fees for instructions did not include the words 'to oppose' and therefore no fee could be charged for instructions to oppose an application. The plaintiff applied for review of this taxation ruling.
Issues
- Whether the Schedule of fees for instructions to advocates allows a fee for instructions to oppose an application in chambers, or whether such fees are limited to successful applicants only.
Orders
- The item in dispute in this taxation will be referred back to the Deputy Registrar to be taxed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- 1916 Rules
- Consolidated O.P.R. & R. 1926 Schedule of fees p.110
Cases cited (1)
- Lakhman Bhanji v T. Thakore (12 K.L.R. 96)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.