JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The Appellants acted for the Respondents in Nairobi HCCC No.749 of 1998. It would appear that at some stage the Respondents withdrew instructions from them and instructed another firm of advocates. Consequent upon that withdrawl, the Appellants filed their client/Advocate bill of costs on 4th April 2001. On 30th July 2001 the Deputy Registrar taxed it at Kshs.4,500,000/=
2. Being aggrieved by that taxation, on 9th September 2001 the Respondents filed an application under Sections 44 and 51 of the Advocates Act (the Act) and Rules 11(1) and (2) and 13 (1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (the Rules) and sought to have that taxation “set aside and varied by decreasing the sum payable to the advocate.” Although in his ruling of 15th November 2001 the Judge agreed with the Appellants that the application was “in essence... incompetent” for being grounded on the taxing master’s ruling and not on the reasons for his decision, he nevertheless allowed it to be argued…