Lehmann’s (E.A.) Ltd. v. Lehmann & Co. Ltd. Civ. Case 92-D-64; 29/8/70; Ruling by Dy. Registrar Mwakibete.

Lehmann’s (E.A.) Ltd. v. Lehmann & Co. Ltd. Civ. Case 92-D-64; 29/8/70; Ruling by Dy. Registrar Mwakibete.

In this Bill of costs item No. 3 was the subject of objection. The said item consisted of instructions to defendant suit and instructions to set up a counter claim. In the former case Shs. 38,500/- was being claimed. In respect of setting up a counter claim.

            Held: (1) “I have no remitation in holding that the fee claimed in the counter claim is grossly excessive. Evidence is there indicating that the debt was acknowledged in writing from time to time. The law whether or not a claim is time barred is clear especially where one acknowledges that debt from time to time. I am not convinced the mere research on the law of limitation in the circumstances of this case would merit a claim of Shs. 11,500/-. I accordingly tax off Shs. 9,000/-. (2) “I now go to deal with the first leg of the claim. The whole case was one involving accounts – between two Companies. The said Accounts extended over a period of some 14 years – commencing from 1950-1964 when the suit was filed in Court. (It was argued that it was the complexity of the matter and not he amount claimed that mattered. The court was asked to be guided by the principles as laid in K v. Z – (1957) E.A. 255 in assessing the instructions fee and to hold the amount claimed as grossly excessive). (According to the Counsel for other inside to set up a good defence to such a suit their research involved immense amount of time and that it further involved going through all the amount of time and that it further involved going through all the correspondence and accounts over that period.) On the above submissions

I am quite satisfied the case involved a lot of preparatory work. Admittedly it was not at all a simple case. The one who won must be adequately remunerated. But he should not be allowed to claim beyond what could be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. With all the submissions of Mr. Riegel in mind I consider Shs. 25,000/- would be a reasonable fee in the circumstances.” (3) “I accordingly allow Shs. 25,000/- as fee to defend the suit. “