Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community (Taxation Cause 4 of 2013)
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 Taxing Officer held that instruction fees must be assessed according to the nature, complexity, and importance of the matter. For a straightforward application for extension of time involving settled principles of law, instruction fees of USD 6,000 plus VAT were reasonable. Getting up fees were awarded at one quarter of instruction fees. Disbursements without supporting receipts were taxed off as non-compliant with mandatory procedural requirements.
Outcome
Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 307,349.04 to USD 16,010
Facts
The applicant filed a bill of costs totalling USD 307,349.04 following dismissal of his application for extension of time to file an appeal from a judgment in Reference No. 1 of 2010. The underlying application had been heard on 22 January 2013 and dismissed with costs on 14 February 2013. The parties agreed on most items in the bill of costs, with disputes remaining on instruction fees (claimed at USD 200,000), getting up fees, and certain disbursements. The applicant argued the matter was complex and important, citing precedents awarding instruction fees up to USD 65,000. The respondent contended the application was straightforward, involving settled principles, and proposed USD 5,000 as reasonable instruction fees.
Issues
- What is the reasonable amount of instruction fees to be awarded for an application for extension of time to file an appeal?
- What is the appropriate getting up fee to be awarded as a proportion of instruction fees?
- Whether disbursements can be allowed without production of receipts as required by the Rules of Procedure?
Orders
- Instruction fees taxed at USD 6,000 plus VAT at 18% (USD 1,080), totalling USD 7,080.
- Getting up fees taxed at USD 1,740 (one quarter of instruction fees).
- Items 30, 31, 32, and 41 taxed off for lack of receipts.
- Item 11 taxed at USD 3.
- Agreed items totalling USD 7,190 allowed as taxed.
- Bill of costs taxed at a grand total of USD 16,010.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 4
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 9
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 2(1)
- East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 4
Cases cited (13)
- James Katabazi & 21 Others v Secretary General of East African Community (Taxation No. 5 of 2008)
- Calist Mwatela & 2 Others v East African Community (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2006)
- Prof Anyang Nyongo and others v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Taxation No. 2 of 2010)
- Modern Holdings East African Ltd v Kenya Ports Authority (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2010)
- Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Prof Anyang Nyongo & 10 Others (Appeal No. 1 of 2009)
- Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Anyang Nyongo & Others (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2010)
- Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
- Paul K Ssemowogerere & Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
- Zachary Olum & Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 of 2004)
- Zuberi V Returneing Officer and Another 1973 E.A 33
- Baldan Vs R. MC, Baldan Vs R. Mohamed Osman, 1969 EA528
- Premchand Limited and Another Vs Quarry Services of EA Limited 1972 EA 162
- Ondieki v Samuel Mageto (Civil Appeal No. Nai. 248 of 2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.