Mbowe v. Attilio Civ. Ref. 1-D-70; 15/8/70; Georges, C.J.

Mbowe v. Attilio Civ. Ref. 1-D-70; 15/8/70; Georges, C.J.

This was reference from the taxation from the bill of costs. The Deputy Registrar who was the taxing master allowed all the items claimed except three. His ruling stated that “A study of the bill of costs” had given him “a clear picture that certain items of the claim were excessive.” The objection to the ruling was on the basis that the taxing master had not indicated what circumstances he had taken into account in taxing of the amounts which he did. Only a study of the proceedings and not the bill of costs could guide him to a decision. He did not give reasons for his decision and therefore cannot be said to have acted judicially.

            Held: (1) “I would not wish to go so far as to say that a taxing master should state in detail the reasons which led him to come to the conclusion to which he did come. After all, the factors to be taken into account in arriving at an instruction fee (and my remarks must be taken as being applicable to such items alone) must, in the very nature of the exercise, be difficult to reduce to rigid propositions, unless these propositions are themselves so general as to have very little meaning.” “I would prefer, therefore, to state that while it is desirable that taxing master should set out their reasons, the mere fact that they have not done so incases where instructions fees are being considered should not be considered a fatal error in principle necessitating that the matter be remitted to be taxed afresh – more so when there has been full argument on the contested item. The court should generally interfere only when it is clear from a close consideration of the sum allowed that there must have been an error in principle in the assessment.” (2) “No decision can be based on the study of the bill of costs. It could be argued that the error is one of language rather that that of fact and that what the taxing master meant to say was that the study of the proceedings had given him a clear picture of he matter. In the circumstances of this case, however, I can see no reason why this presumption should be made. The taxing master may very well have meant what he said and if he did he was in error.” (3) Taxation remitted to another taxing master for reconsideration.