For his work, of receiving instructions and doing research on applicable doping laws, plus multiple meetings with the client, AK and eventual lifting of the suspension, Mr Kipkorir asked for Sh203 million.
After handling the matter, the taxing master- Deputy registrar F. Rashid gave a ruling in February 2017 giving Mr Kipkorir Sh5 million for instruction fees plus other uncontested fees, totaling Sh8.3 million.
Lawyer Donald Kipkorir has failed in his bid to convince the Court of Appeal to uphold a Sh8.3 million fee awarded to him for defending an Italian athletics agent Rosa & Associati, which had been suspended five years ago over doping claims.
The agent, which manages more than 30 world-class athletes in the country, was suspended by Athletics Kenya (AK) in April 2015 but the ban was lifted six months later.
Following the suspension, the agency instructed the flamboyant lawyer to defend it against AK. Mr Kipkorir then wrote a series of letters to AK, questioning the suspension.
The suspension was eventually lifted and whereas Mr Kipkorir it was because of his efforts, the agency said it was due to the intervention of the International Athletics Association Federation (IAAF).
For his work, of receiving instructions and doing research on applicable doping laws, plus multiple meetings with the client, AK and eventual lifting of the suspension, Mr Kipkorir asked for Sh203 million.
After handling the matter, the taxing master- Deputy registrar F. Rashid gave a ruling in February 2017 giving Mr Kipkorir Sh5 million for instruction fees plus other uncontested fees, totaling Sh8.3 million.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the agency moved to the High Court and Justice Lucy Njuguna agreed with the agency saying the instruction fee of Sh5 million was excessive in the circumstances.
The lawyer moved to the appellate court faulting Justice Njuguna arguing that she imposed her opinion in the matter. He said there was no basis for interfering with the taxing master’s decision and that an advocate is entitled to fees even in non-contentious matters.
According to Mr Kipkorir, anti-doping is novel and unconventional within the practice in Kenya and such a brief require complex input of time and resources and he saved the agency from losing its main livelihood of managing Kenyan athletes.
On its part, the agency through Brenda Olembo submitted that the Judge was right to refer the matter for taxation afresh as Mr Kipkorir’s law firm had been awarded more than it deserved.
She submitted that lifting of the suspension was through the intervention of other parties, not Mr Kipkorir and in any event, the suspension of its licence was for six months, which was lifted after the expiry of the period.
“As observed by the Judge the instructions given by the respondent to the appellant led to no more than an exchange of correspondence. We have looked at the whole record. There is no written opinion by the appellant to its client, the respondent, and nothing more came apart from a demand letter and reminders,” Justices Agnes Murgor, Sankale ole Kantai and Jessie Lesiit said.
The judges said there was no substance in the appeal that challenge the jurisdiction of the Judge on the reference that was filed before her. “We also find no merit in the other grounds of appeal,” they said.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
